The Right To Bear Arms

[progressive hunter]

The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.

It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.

It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not

sorry lush but those are the words,,,,

you must be reading the communist constitution

 

[danielpalos]

The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.

It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.

It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not

sorry lush but those are the words,,,,

you must be reading the communist constitution

any land force is subject to Congressional legislation. our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

 

[Lesh]

The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.

It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.

It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not

sorry lush but those are the words,,,,

you must be reading the communist constitution

any land force is subject to Congressional legislation. our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding

 

[progressive hunter]

The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.

It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.

It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not

sorry lush but those are the words,,,,

you must be reading the communist constitution

any land force is subject to Congressional legislation. our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding

neither,,,just giving you the facts,,,

if you can refute them then please do so

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

willful blindness is a moral turpitude

So, you are arguing that legal analysis should be obvious to everyone?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not

It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?

It doesn't LITERALLY state that [a militia] [is] (is = a conjugated "be" verb = same as "being") necessary? It doesn't literally state that "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."

I think I pretty much LITERALLY stated it. I added no new words..

.

 

[Lesh]

It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?

It "literally" says "A Well Regulated Militia..."

It does not "literally" or otherwise say whatever the fuck you are claiming

 

[danielpalos]

The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.

It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.

It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not

sorry lush but those are the words,,,,

you must be reading the communist constitution

any land force is subject to Congressional legislation. our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding

You don't know what you are talking about and have only fallacy for rebuttal instead of Any valid argument.

 

[danielpalos]

willful blindness is a moral turpitude

So, you are arguing that legal analysis should be obvious to everyone?

.

the right wing doesn't care about natural rights or a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge; what do they care about?

 

[danielpalos]

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not

It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?

It doesn't LITERALLY state that [a militia] [is] (is = a conjugated "be" verb = same as "being") necessary? It doesn't literally state that "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."

I think I pretty much LITERALLY stated it. I added no new words..

.

The People are the Militia; you are Either well regulated or not.

 

[hadit]

It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.

It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not

sorry lush but those are the words,,,,

you must be reading the communist constitution

any land force is subject to Congressional legislation. our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding

You don't know what you are talking about and have only fallacy for rebuttal instead of Any valid argument.

That's really pathetic. I've seen you try the PeeWee Herman thing before. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

 

[hadit]

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not

It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?

It doesn't LITERALLY state that [a militia] [is] (is = a conjugated "be" verb = same as "being") necessary? It doesn't literally state that "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."

I think I pretty much LITERALLY stated it. I added no new words..

.

The People are the Militia; you are Either well regulated or not.

So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. You just nuked your own argument.

 

[danielpalos]

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not

sorry lush but those are the words,,,,

you must be reading the communist constitution

any land force is subject to Congressional legislation. our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding

You don't know what you are talking about and have only fallacy for rebuttal instead of Any valid argument.

That's really pathetic. I've seen you try the PeeWee Herman thing before. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not

It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?

It doesn't LITERALLY state that [a militia] [is] (is = a conjugated "be" verb = same as "being") necessary? It doesn't literally state that "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."

I think I pretty much LITERALLY stated it. I added no new words..

.

The People are the Militia; you are Either well regulated or not.

So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. You just nuked your own argument.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; organize sufficient militia to make that happen, don't make excuses, right wingers. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

 

[hadit]

sorry lush but those are the words,,,,

you must be reading the communist constitution

any land force is subject to Congressional legislation. our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding

You don't know what you are talking about and have only fallacy for rebuttal instead of Any valid argument.

That's really pathetic. I've seen you try the PeeWee Herman thing before. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.

Yes, yes you are. You haven't produced a valid argument yet.

 

[hadit]

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not

It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?

It doesn't LITERALLY state that [a militia] [is] (is = a conjugated "be" verb = same as "being") necessary? It doesn't literally state that "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."

I think I pretty much LITERALLY stated it. I added no new words..

.

The People are the Militia; you are Either well regulated or not.

So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. You just nuked your own argument.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; organize sufficient militia to make that happen, don't make excuses, right wingers. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

Don't you remember? I told you that we already did that, so now we can go back to ordinary people owning guns if they want to.

 

[danielpalos]

any land force is subject to Congressional legislation. our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding

You don't know what you are talking about and have only fallacy for rebuttal instead of Any valid argument.

That's really pathetic. I've seen you try the PeeWee Herman thing before. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.

Yes, yes you are. You haven't produced a valid argument yet.

i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.

 

[danielpalos]

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not

It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?

It doesn't LITERALLY state that [a militia] [is] (is = a conjugated "be" verb = same as "being") necessary? It doesn't literally state that "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."

I think I pretty much LITERALLY stated it. I added no new words..

.

The People are the Militia; you are Either well regulated or not.

So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. You just nuked your own argument.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; organize sufficient militia to make that happen, don't make excuses, right wingers. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

Don't you remember? I told you that we already did that, so now we can go back to ordinary people owning guns if they want to.

too lazy to muster but like to be hypocritical about the Poor, allegedly mooching?

 

[Lakhota]

Exclusive: NRA Official Sought Sandy Hook Hoaxer To Question Parkland Shooting, Emails Show

Ugly. Very ugly.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. You just nuked your own argument.

all he does is respond with bullshit