Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
not me; i resort to the fewest fallacies by custom and habit until it is indistinguishable from a moral; unlike those of the opposing view in this forum in the public domain.You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what. Something very difficult.
No surprise. The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
No not lie. He/she/it brings upYou know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what. Something very difficult.
No surprise. The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
Not lie necessarily he/she/it brings up preposterous subjects to deflect, confuse, confound and change the subject.You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what. Something very difficult.
No surprise. The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
It's amazing how quickly and effectively the ignore function takes care of that.No not lie. He/she/it brings upYou know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what. Something very difficult.
No surprise. The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
Not lie necessarily he/she/it brings up preposterous subjects to deflect, confuse, confound and change the subject.You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what. Something very difficult.
No surprise. The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
He/she/it rarely has anything worthwhile to say and seems to delight in irritating everyone he/she/it can.
not me; i resort to the fewest fallacies by custom and habit until it is indistinguishable from a moral; unlike those of the opposing view in this forum in the public domain.You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what. Something very difficult.
No surprise. The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
dear, not just Any militia (of the People) is enumerated, but well regulated militias of the People are specifically enumerated.The current text: "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."
The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
You start from a false premise. The militia is not an issue.
It's the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia.
dear, only the clueless, the Causeless, and the right have to lie.not me; i resort to the fewest fallacies by custom and habit until it is indistinguishable from a moral; unlike those of the opposing view in this forum in the public domain.You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what. Something very difficult.
No surprise. The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
You lie. That's all I need to know to realize you are a waste of time.
dear, simply appealing to ignorance of what the militia of the United States is, is just, so special.dear, not just Any militia (of the People) is enumerated, but well regulated militias of the People are specifically enumerated.The current text: "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."
The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
You start from a false premise. The militia is not an issue.
It's the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia.
"the right of the People", not just the right of the people in well regulated militia. Repeating your lie does not make it true.
dear, simply appealing to ignorance of what the militia of the United States is, is just, so special.dear, not just Any militia (of the People) is enumerated, but well regulated militias of the People are specifically enumerated.The current text: "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."
The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
You start from a false premise. The militia is not an issue.
It's the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia.
"the right of the People", not just the right of the people in well regulated militia. Repeating your lie does not make it true.
dear, only the clueless, the Causeless, and the right have to lie.not me; i resort to the fewest fallacies by custom and habit until it is indistinguishable from a moral; unlike those of the opposing view in this forum in the public domain.No surprise. The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
You lie. That's all I need to know to realize you are a waste of time.
dear, only those of your point of view appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.dear, simply appealing to ignorance of what the militia of the United States is, is just, so special.dear, not just Any militia (of the People) is enumerated, but well regulated militias of the People are specifically enumerated.The current text: "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."
The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
You start from a false premise. The militia is not an issue.
It's the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia.
"the right of the People", not just the right of the people in well regulated militia. Repeating your lie does not make it true.
And reverting to such a statement because you can't win on the facts and your lies are being exposed is just so juvenile. You may go, you don't even have the redeeming quality of being clever.
i resort to the fewest fallacies to prove it, not just talk about it.dear, only the clueless, the Causeless, and the right have to lie.not me; i resort to the fewest fallacies by custom and habit until it is indistinguishable from a moral; unlike those of the opposing view in this forum in the public domain.I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
He clearly is willing to lie to continue the debate, so you may not ever get an answer that makes sense.
You lie. That's all I need to know to realize you are a waste of time.
A perfect summation of your position.
You know, trying to get a straight answer out of daniel is like . . . . I don't even know what. Something very difficult.
No surprise. The creepy way that he continues to address other males as “dear”, in such a manner as to suggest a sexual interest, would seem to indicate that he is anything but “straight”, and therefore, that a “straight” answer is not ever to be expected from him.
I'm going to get an answer that makes sense if it kills me!
from where? posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
still nothing but fallacy? having a Good argument require too much bravery.from where? posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
still nothing but fallacy? having a Good argument require too much bravery.from where? posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment. it really is that simple.still nothing but fallacy? having a Good argument require too much bravery.from where? posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
You still have not posted anything to back your claims. The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment. it really is that simple.still nothing but fallacy? having a Good argument require too much bravery.from where? posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
You still have not posted anything to back your claims. The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment. it really is that simple.still nothing but fallacy? having a Good argument require too much bravery.from where? posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
You still have not posted anything to back your claims. The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
no dear; hearsay and soothsay is not admissible as evidence; there is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment. it really is that simple.still nothing but fallacy? having a Good argument require too much bravery.from where? posse comitatus is common law; not, the militia of a State or the Union.
Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?
You still have not posted anything to back your claims. The federalist papers say you are wrong, the fact that men were armed during the period before, during and after the creation of the Constitution/BOR proves you wrong.
Obviously you don't understand the second amendment at all, especially considering that all free men were armed at the time the second amendment was written. Isn't that right?
