Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

History and facts prove your sorry pathetic old stinking mentally retarded arse wrong!

sorry dear; you have nothing but fallacy to work with, just like all of the other ones.

 

[ChrisL]

Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?

still nothing but fallacy? having a Good argument require too much bravery.

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.

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?

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.

Again, it is not hearsay. It is history. Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.

 

[ChrisL]

Why should any rational person care what a pussy communist thinks?

still nothing but fallacy? having a Good argument require too much bravery.

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.

History and facts prove your sorry pathetic old stinking mentally retarded arse wrong!

sorry dear; you have nothing but fallacy to work with, just like all of the other ones.

Stop calling me dear, you weird little troll.

 

[danielpalos]

still nothing but fallacy? having a Good argument require too much bravery.

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.

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?

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.

Again, it is not hearsay. It is history. Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.

yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

 

[danielpalos]

still nothing but fallacy? having a Good argument require too much bravery.

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.

History and facts prove your sorry pathetic old stinking mentally retarded arse wrong!

sorry dear; you have nothing but fallacy to work with, just like all of the other ones.

Stop calling me dear, you weird little troll.

i would dear, but you are soo special with nothing but fallacy at your disposal.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

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?

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.

Again, it is not hearsay. It is history. Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.

yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

You are the one who is ignorant. Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?

 

[turtledude]

Stop calling me dear, you weird little troll.

you have a bot getting hard over you

better get some WD-40 and keep the bot happy

 

[ChrisL]

Stop calling me dear, you weird little troll.

you have a bot getting hard over you

better get some WD-40 and keep the bot happy

Why would I want to do that?

 

[turtledude]

keeps the little bot from getting rusty after jizzing all over himself

 

[ChrisL]

keeps the little bot from getting rusty after jizzing all over himself

 

[danielpalos]

dear, i don't need to cite anything other than the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment. it really is that simple.

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?

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.

Again, it is not hearsay. It is history. Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.

yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

You are the one who is ignorant. Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?

dear; you missed the point. you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

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.

Again, it is not hearsay. It is history. Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.

yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

You are the one who is ignorant. Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?

dear; you missed the point. you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.

I've already done that. Try to follow along. The "militia" is made up of all free men/citizens of the United States, to be ready with their arms at a moment's notice.

 

[ChrisL]

History, daniel, learn the history of our country before you spout off such nonsense!!!

In 1774, General Thomas Gage, the new Governor of Massachusetts, tried to enforce the Intolerable Acts, which were designed to remove power from the towns. Samuel Adams pressed for County Conventions to strengthen the revolutionary resistance. Gage tried to seat his own court in Worcester, but the townspeople blocked the court from sitting. Two thousand militiamen marched to intimidate the judges and get them to leave. This was the first time the militia was used by the people to block the king's representatives from acting on royal orders and against popular opinion. Gage responded by preparing to march to collect munitions from the provincials. For 50 miles around Boston, militiamen were marching in response. By noon the next day, almost 4000 people were on the common in Cambridge. The provincials got the judges to resign and leave. Gage backed off from trying to seat a court in Worcester.

 

[ChrisL]

Overmountain Men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ChrisL]

So, given the above two (among MANY) historical accounts of individuals taking up arms to fight off the British "government" which was in power at the time, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the founding fathers wanted a "federally" controlled militia???

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Again, it is not hearsay. It is history. Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.

yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

You are the one who is ignorant. Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?

dear; you missed the point. you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.

I've already done that. Try to follow along. The "militia" is made up of all free men/citizens of the United States, to be ready with their arms at a moment's notice.

yes; thus, not all of the militia of the United States is well regulated; dear. Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

History, daniel, learn the history of our country before you spout off such nonsense!!!

In 1774, General Thomas Gage, the new Governor of Massachusetts, tried to enforce the Intolerable Acts, which were designed to remove power from the towns. Samuel Adams pressed for County Conventions to strengthen the revolutionary resistance. Gage tried to seat his own court in Worcester, but the townspeople blocked the court from sitting. Two thousand militiamen marched to intimidate the judges and get them to leave. This was the first time the militia was used by the people to block the king's representatives from acting on royal orders and against popular opinion. Gage responded by preparing to march to collect munitions from the provincials. For 50 miles around Boston, militiamen were marching in response. By noon the next day, almost 4000 people were on the common in Cambridge. The provincials got the judges to resign and leave. Gage backed off from trying to seat a court in Worcester.

dear; hearsay and soothsay is just that: there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

So, given the above two (among MANY) historical accounts of individuals taking up arms to fight off the British "government" which was in power at the time, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the founding fathers wanted a "federally" controlled militia???

dear; the militia of the United States is a federal obligation.

 

[ChrisL]

Again, it is not hearsay. It is history. Read a book and get educated about the subject instead of just posting the same old posts over and over again.

yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

You are the one who is ignorant. Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?

dear; you missed the point. you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.

I've already done that. Try to follow along. The "militia" is made up of all free men/citizens of the United States, to be ready with their arms at a moment's notice.

yes; thus, not all of the militia of the United States is well regulated; dear. Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed.

Your understanding of this country and why we have rights and why we do things the way we do is so . . . wrong, I doubt that you are a citizen of the United States. You have absolutely no knowledge of how our country was even founded!! Go back to the playpen, pathetic little troll.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, dear; it is nothing but hearsay and soothsay simple because their is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

You are the one who is ignorant. Shall I post the link to the federalist papers again?

dear; you missed the point. you are welcome to cite the federalist papers regarding the militia.

I've already done that. Try to follow along. The "militia" is made up of all free men/citizens of the United States, to be ready with their arms at a moment's notice.

yes; thus, not all of the militia of the United States is well regulated; dear. Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed.

Your understanding of this country and why we have rights and why we do things the way we do is so . . . wrong, I doubt that you are a citizen of the United States. You have absolutely no knowledge of how our country was even founded!! Go back to the playpen, pathetic little troll.

why not acquire and possess a clue and a Cause, instead of just being a shill.