Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[LOki]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.

The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.

If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.

The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.

If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--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.

 

[LOki]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.

The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.

If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.

The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.

If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

 

[westwall]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.

The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.

If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.

 

[LOki]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.

The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.

If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

"...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Yes.

Then we are in agreement.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.

The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.

If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.

You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the rules of construction for the federal doctrine.

The Ends are the End for which the Means must provide for or be useless.

If the Means doesn't provide for the End, then, the Means may be sacrificed for the End, and that Intent, and that Purpose.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

"...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Yes.

Then we are in agreement.

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the Means rather than the Clause with the End.

 

[LOki]

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.

You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

In your fatous construction you have created a conflict out of nothing. You have baselessy and artificially set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Even if you were right about this "means and ends" utter nonsense, sacrificing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." serves only to diminish, undermine, and ultimately render impotent and meaningless the "ends" as you would have it.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

"...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Yes.

Then we are in agreement.

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the Means rather than the Clause with the End.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.

You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

yes, pumkin; the People of the South were Infringed in their keeping and bearing Arms for their Cause, instead of the Cause of the several States and the Union--simply because,

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

"...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Yes.

Then we are in agreement.

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the Means rather than the Clause with the End.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

 

[LOki]

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.


I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.

You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

"...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Yes.

Then we are in agreement.

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the Means rather than the Clause with the End.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

Since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll identify, explain, or demonstrate this "fallacy" you're accusing me of applying, we'll just move on to identifying the reason no such exposition will be forthcoming.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.

You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

"...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Yes.

Then we are in agreement.

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the Means rather than the Clause with the End.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

Since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll identify, explain, or demonstrate this "fallacy" you're accusing me of applying, we'll just move on to identifying the reason no such exposition will be forthcoming.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

I can do this all day long, grasshopper. here it is again for Your ease and Your convenience:

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the Means rather than the Clause with the End.

 

[westwall]

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.


I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.

You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

Boring and stupid non-sequitur.
I quote the 2nd Amendment directly, "...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It simply does not say, "Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

"...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Yes.

Then we are in agreement.

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the Means rather than the Clause with the End.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

Let's take a look at the "end" then, shall we?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."-Thomas Jefferson

 

[danielpalos]

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.

You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

yes, pumkin; that is the literal meaning of that Amendment.

"...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Yes.

Then we are in agreement.

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the Means rather than the Clause with the End.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

Let's take a look at the "end" then, shall we?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."-Thomas Jefferson

dude and Esquires,

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

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.

This is the End, my friend: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

 

[westwall]

Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.

You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

"...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Yes.

Then we are in agreement.

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the Means rather than the Clause with the End.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

Let's take a look at the "end" then, shall we?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."-Thomas Jefferson

dude and Esquires,

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

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.

This is the End, my friend: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

No, it's most certainly not. The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do, and one final option. You can put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[danielpalos]

You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the Means rather than the Clause with the End.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

Let's take a look at the "end" then, shall we?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."-Thomas Jefferson

dude and Esquires,

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

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.

This is the End, my friend: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

No, it's most certainly not. The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do, and one final option. You can put that in your pipe and smoke it!

smoke it yourself; i am not the one being non-responsive in this, pre-legal venue.

 

[danielpalos]

dear Esquires,

non responsiveness, after thrice, it should be considered a moral turpitude of a vice.

 

[westwall]

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

Let's take a look at the "end" then, shall we?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."-Thomas Jefferson

dude and Esquires,

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

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.

This is the End, my friend: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

No, it's most certainly not. The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do, and one final option. You can put that in your pipe and smoke it!

smoke it yourself; i am not the one being non-responsive in this, pre-legal venue.

No, but your responses are ignorant and based on nothing but your simple minded opinion. In other words you have descended into trolldom.

 

[danielpalos]

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

Let's take a look at the "end" then, shall we?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."-Thomas Jefferson

dude and Esquires,

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

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.

This is the End, my friend: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

No, it's most certainly not. The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do, and one final option. You can put that in your pipe and smoke it!

smoke it yourself; i am not the one being non-responsive in this, pre-legal venue.

No, but your responses are ignorant and based on nothing but your simple minded opinion. In other words you have descended into trolldom.

projecting much, pumkin?

dude and Esquires,

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

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.

This is the End, my friend: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

 

[LOki]

Funny how the SCOTUS and 99% of all constitutional scholars feel otherwise.

You are welcome to think that way; I know there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

"...the right of the people to keep to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is indeed the literal meaning of that Amendment.

Yes.

Then we are in agreement.

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the Means rather than the Clause with the End.

When you sacrifice the "means" upon which the "ends" are dependent, you sacrifice the "ends" as well.

It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

Your retarded notion is self-negating. It causes your erroneous "intent and purpose" to be repugnant unto itself. Your own bullshit defeats you, and the very reference you bring to validate your bullshit serves only to validate your defeat.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

You keep resorting to fallacy: the End is the Intent and Purpose for which the Means must follow "or be shot" for insubordination to the Cause, End, Intent, and Purpose.

Since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll identify, explain, or demonstrate this "fallacy" you're accusing me of applying, we'll just move on to identifying the reason no such exposition will be forthcoming.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

I can do this all day long, grasshopper. here it is again for Your ease and Your convenience:

If any Thing in that Article of Amendment may be ignored, it must be the Clause with the Means rather than the Clause with the End.

1) It is intellectually and morally invalid for you to arbitrarilyy set the "ends" at odds with the "means" for the sole purpose of "sacrificing""the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

You clearly and disingenuously misapply the principle you cite. Your argument is patently invalid.

2) If the security of a free State is "the ends," then "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." is not "the means", a well regulated militia is "the means" to the security of a free State.

3) The purpose and intent you have arbitrarily assigned to the 2nd Amendment is in direct conflict with the "ends" that were explicitly articulated for enumerating and asserting that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

4) The main operative clause of the 2nd Amendment CANNOT be ignored, or it renders the ENTIRE sentence incomplete and/or meaningless.

You are just wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.