Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

mine were better and don't resort to any affirmative action of fallacy, like yours do.

 

[LOki]

mine were better and don't resort to any affirmative action of fallacy, like yours do.

Add repetition of idiotic non-sequiturs and patent irrelevancies to the evidence that you are stupid and boring. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[Doggy]

Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.

 

[danielpalos]

mine were better and don't resort to any affirmative action of fallacy, like yours do.

Add repetition of idiotic non-sequiturs and patent irrelevancies to the evidence that you are stupid and boring. AGAIN. STILL.

Too bad yours are worse.

 

[danielpalos]

Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.

The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

crybabys

 

[WinterBorn]

Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.

The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

crybabys

Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well. And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).

 

[danielpalos]

Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.

The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

crybabys

Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well. And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).

That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).

 

[WinterBorn]

Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.

The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

crybabys

Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well. And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).

That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).

I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.

If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.

 

[danielpalos]

Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.

The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

crybabys

Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well. And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).

That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).

I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.

If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.

Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?

 

[LOki]

mine were better and don't resort to any affirmative action of fallacy, like yours do.

Add repetition of idiotic non-sequiturs and patent irrelevancies to the evidence that you are stupid and boring. AGAIN. STILL.

Too bad yours are worse.

Why can't you demonstrate this with valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality, Sis?

You repeatedly make these claims and accusations, yet not once have you demonstrated that they are in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Sis?

 

[WinterBorn]

Fuck you,Danielpalos.....Go suck Obumgo`s dick.,you sob.Go stay in England with the rest of the crybabies.

The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

crybabys

Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well. And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).

That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).

I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.

If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.

Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?

Paragraph 2 where? I do not know which "paragraph (2)" you are referring to. If it is the heller v. Dc decision, paragraph 2 does not refer to any exemption. Link?

 

[danielpalos]

mine were better and don't resort to any affirmative action of fallacy, like yours do.

Add repetition of idiotic non-sequiturs and patent irrelevancies to the evidence that you are stupid and boring. AGAIN. STILL.

Too bad yours are worse.

Why can't you demonstrate this with valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality, Sis?

You repeatedly make these claims and accusations, yet not once have you demonstrated that they are in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Sis?

I did pumkin; you simply are not competent enough to understand. Why not revisit this issue when you can be more adult.

 

[danielpalos]

The only ones crying are gun lovers who don't have a clue or a Cause; well regulated militias of the United States, already enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

crybabys

Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well. And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).

That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).

I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.

If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.

Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?

Paragraph 2 where? I do not know which "paragraph (2)" you are referring to. If it is the heller v. Dc decision, paragraph 2 does not refer to any exemption. Link?

Dude, stop being disingenuous; it does not inspire confidence in your sincerity. Have you read the paragraph that follows the paragraph many gun lovers cite?

 

[LOki]

mine were better and don't resort to any affirmative action of fallacy, like yours do.

Add repetition of idiotic non-sequiturs and patent irrelevancies to the evidence that you are stupid and boring. AGAIN. STILL.

Too bad yours are worse.

Why can't you demonstrate this with valid logic applied to the verifiable facts of reality, Sis?

You repeatedly make these claims and accusations, yet not once have you demonstrated that they are in any way valid...despite every request that you do so, and every opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Sis?

I did pumkin; you simply are not competent enough to understand. Why not revisit this issue when you can be more adult.

You did no such thing, or you'd link to it.

Now is your clear opportunity to level up, Cupcake.

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]

gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of all of the other ones; as, even the South found out.

 

[WinterBorn]

Individual citizens already enjoy the benefits of the 2nd amendment as well. And membership in a state run militia is not a requirement to enjoy this right (per SCOTUS ruling in Heller v. DC).

That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).

I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.

If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.

Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?

Paragraph 2 where? I do not know which "paragraph (2)" you are referring to. If it is the heller v. Dc decision, paragraph 2 does not refer to any exemption. Link?

Dude, stop being disingenuous; it does not inspire confidence in your sincerity. Have you read the paragraph that follows the paragraph many gun lovers cite?

I am not being disingenuous. You are being intentionally vague.

I understand that you are talking about the second paragraph. But of WHAT?

Is this what you are referring to?
"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

 

[WinterBorn]

gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of all of the other ones; as, even the South found out.

Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.

 

[danielpalos]

That is patently False, as noted in the "fine print" of paragraph (2).

I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.

If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.

Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?

Paragraph 2 where? I do not know which "paragraph (2)" you are referring to. If it is the heller v. Dc decision, paragraph 2 does not refer to any exemption. Link?

Dude, stop being disingenuous; it does not inspire confidence in your sincerity. Have you read the paragraph that follows the paragraph many gun lovers cite?

I am not being disingenuous. You are being intentionally vague.

I understand that you are talking about the second paragraph. But of WHAT?

Is this what you are referring to?
"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

dude and Esquires; there is no willful appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State. There is also, no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose.

 

[WinterBorn]

I did not say there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What I said was that individual citizens enjoy this right and that it is not dependent on membership in a gov't militia.

If you have some evidence to dispute that, feel free to post it.

Did you miss the point about well regulated militias of of the People being exempt from paragraph two (by our Second Amendment), but not gun lovers who can't be bothered to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?

Paragraph 2 where? I do not know which "paragraph (2)" you are referring to. If it is the heller v. Dc decision, paragraph 2 does not refer to any exemption. Link?

Dude, stop being disingenuous; it does not inspire confidence in your sincerity. Have you read the paragraph that follows the paragraph many gun lovers cite?

I am not being disingenuous. You are being intentionally vague.

I understand that you are talking about the second paragraph. But of WHAT?

Is this what you are referring to?
"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

dude and Esquires; there is no willful appeal to ignorance of 10USC311--not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated; well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State. There is also, no willful appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose.

You keep quoting the US Code. Unless the SCOTUS reverses their rulings (and rules as it has never done), the US Code is simply a description of militias as they stand. The founding fathers intent was clear. They want civilians ready to become militia when needed. The SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd is, in fact, an individual right and is not contingent on membership in a militia. It is really quite simple. But you keep trying to bring in the US Code as if that has some power to override what the US Constitution says and what the SCOTUS has ruled. It does not.

 

[danielpalos]

gun lovers and their supporters on the right cannot claim any Individual right supersedes, that which necessary to the security of a free State; simply because, Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--regardless of all of the other ones; as, even the South found out.

Actually, the 2nd amendment does preserve the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether or not you are a member of a gov't run militia.

no, it doesn't. rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions and available via due process.

There are no Individual rights in private property possible through the collectivism of the terms, (and intent and purpose of what is necessary to the security of a free State) militia and the (collectivism of the means--the) People.

The Only way that could happen, is if our Second Article of Amendment were a Constitution unto itself.