Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[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.

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

Your assertion is entirely unfounded, and since there's no reason for anyone to expect that you'll explain, or demonstrate this assertion of yours with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, 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]

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.

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.

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

 

[LOki]

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.

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

If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

The reality is that it is not. This has been proven definitively, several times.

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

 

[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.

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.

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

If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

The reality is that it is not. This has been proven definitively, several times.

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

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

Your problem is there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws should we need to quibble that specific point in legal venues.

 

[LOki]

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.

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

If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

The reality is that it is not. This has been proven definitively, several times.

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

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

If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

Your problem is there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws should we need to quibble that specific point in legal venues.

No. I don't have this problem. If I did, you'd be able to demonstrate it using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce such a demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

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

 

[Geaux4it]

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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

If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

The reality is that it is not. This has been proven definitively, several times.

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

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

If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

Your problem is there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws should we need to quibble that specific point in legal venues.

No. I don't have this problem. If I did, you'd be able to demonstrate it using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce such a demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

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

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

This is the Means, which must be sacrificed to the End, even if for insubordination and willful disobedience: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

it really is that simple, grasshopper.

 

[LOki]

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.

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

If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

The reality is that it is not. This has been proven definitively, several times.

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

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

If you could demonstrate that is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

Your problem is there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws should we need to quibble that specific point in legal venues.

No. I don't have this problem. If I did, you'd be able to demonstrate it using valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce such a demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

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

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

If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

This is the Means, which must be sacrificed to the End, even if for insubordination and willful disobedience: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce such a demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

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

 

[danielpalos]

Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

 

[LOki]

Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

Yes. We saw it the first time.

It STILL PROVES you wrong. And stupid. And boring. AGAIN.

 

[danielpalos]

Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

Yes. We saw it the first time.

It STILL PROVES you wrong. And stupid. And boring. AGAIN.

It Only proves no Thing to you, grasshopper simply because you are still incompetent.

 

[LOki]

Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

Yes. We saw it the first time.

It STILL PROVES you wrong. And stupid. And boring. AGAIN.

It Only proves no Thing to you, grasshopper simply because you are still incompetent.

If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce any such demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

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

 

[danielpalos]

Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

Yes. We saw it the first time.

It STILL PROVES you wrong. And stupid. And boring. AGAIN.

It Only proves no Thing to you, grasshopper simply because you are still incompetent.

If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce any such demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

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

Here is it is again, for Your ease and Your convenience; grasshopper:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

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

This is the Means, which must be sacrificed to the End, even if for insubordination and willful disobedience: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

it really is that simple, grasshopper.

 

[Gunman]

Yah ... 68 pages of BS ...and yall still ant gonna get my Guns....! ! !

 

[danielpalos]

Yah ... 68 pages of BS ...and yall still ant gonna get my Guns....! ! !

nobody claimed they were.

it is just the right practicing their communism with Commerce.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[LOki]

Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

Yes. We saw it the first time.

It STILL PROVES you wrong. And stupid. And boring. AGAIN.

It Only proves no Thing to you, grasshopper simply because you are still incompetent.

If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce any such demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

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

Here is it is again, for Your ease and Your convenience; grasshopper:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

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

This is the Means, which must be sacrificed to the End, even if for insubordination and willful disobedience: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce any such demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

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

Here is it is again, for your ease and your convenience; grasshopper:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

Yes. We saw it the first time.

It STILL PROVES you wrong. And stupid. And boring. AGAIN.

It Only proves no Thing to you, grasshopper simply because you are still incompetent.

If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce any such demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

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

Here is it is again, for Your ease and Your convenience; grasshopper:

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

Yes. We saw it the first time.

It STILL PROVES you wrong. And stupid. And boring. AGAIN.

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

This is the Means, which must be sacrificed to the End, even if for insubordination and willful disobedience: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

it really is that simple, grasshopper.

If you could demonstrate that this is so with valid logic applied to verifiable facts of reality, you would have done so by now.

Since the likelihood that you'll produce any such demonstration is ZERO, we'll just move on to the reason no such demonstration will be forthcoming.

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

 

[Doggy]

Yah ... 68 pages of BS ...and yall still ant gonna get my Guns....! ! !

nobody claimed they were.

it is just the right practicing their communism with Commerce.

Glad you`re GONE,you stupid son of a bitch.I hope you drown in blood of a pig..You`re the most worthless queer that ever was

 

[danielpalos]

It hasn't been a good year for them. The NRA is winning major battles despite the super Rich's money going against them. Gun sales and ownership is up, more and more women are toting, and crime is going down because of it. Liberals weep for the non-loss of life:
What Happened to Chicago s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws

special pleading much; why are State governors still getting a free pass regarding that which is declared necessary to the security of a free State?

 

[PredFan]

It hasn't been a good year for them. The NRA is winning major battles despite the super Rich's money going against them. Gun sales and ownership is up, more and more women are toting, and crime is going down because of it. Liberals weep for the non-loss of life:
What Happened to Chicago s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws

special pleading much; why are State governors still getting a free pass regarding that which is declared necessary to the security of a free State?

Who cares? It's irrelevant.