Salon: Bolt Action Rifles are Military Grade Killing Machines, Ban Them

[danielpalos]

why should i believe you; you only have an inferior argument.

No I do not.

You claim to cite a law but quoted no law which is dishonest, cowardly and therefore inferior.

The common defense appeals to the common law. We have no general defense clause.

The second amendment is not a defense clause one way or the other it is a clause protecting individual rights.

Our Second Amendment expressly declares it is about the security of a free State not your right wing fantasy.

No it does not

It expressly states it is the right of people which means individuals

Learn how to read English you retard

i do know how to read; it expressly declares it is about the security of a free State not individual rights, in the first clause. nowhere does it state it is about individual rights.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You should follow that advice.

I do; there are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment; they are collective and plural.

Wrong.

You have already been corrected on that

Only individuals have rights

You should follow that advice.

I do; there are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment; they are collective and plural.

Wrong

Only individuals have rights that is a fact

where does it say that?

In reality.

You should become acquainted with it.

you are making up right wing fantasy.

It is bit right or left wing

You have a knee jerk reaction to call any inconvenient facts right wing.

Very illogical and unreasonable but you are not very intelligent

Plain english proves you wrong and that is fact

 

[Soupnazi630]

No I do not.

You claim to cite a law but quoted no law which is dishonest, cowardly and therefore inferior.

The common defense appeals to the common law. We have no general defense clause.

The second amendment is not a defense clause one way or the other it is a clause protecting individual rights.

Our Second Amendment expressly declares it is about the security of a free State not your right wing fantasy.

No it does not

It expressly states it is the right of people which means individuals

Learn how to read English you retard

i do know how to read; it expressly declares it is about the security of a free State not individual rights, in the first clause. nowhere does it state it is about individual rights.

It is about individual rights as the second clause irrefutably proves.

It protects the rights of individuals and no one else which is what it says

 

[Soupnazi630]

"The People" is defined as a collection of INDIVIDUALS and the Supreme Court ruled the 2A as an individual right.

no individual terms were actually expressed in our Second Amendment. why should we believe right wing propaganda?

Yes there are

Rights

Which only individuals have.

That is not right wing it is objective fact no matter how childishly you wish to ignore it

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights.

Wrong and absolutely proven wrong.

It is about individual rights and that is fact as the text proves

You are now simply a liar and fool.

projecting much? the first clause shows who the liar is.

No it does not

The first clause does not negate my statements the second clause negates your claims

You are a proven liar.

 

[Pilot1]

We are THE PEOPLE. Government does not grant us RIGHTS. We have them Naturally. The 2A is the right of the PEOPLE who are individuals and NOT THE GOVERNMENT. It could not be more clear.

 

[Marion Morrison]

They. Will. Never. Stop.

Gungrabbers never give up because they know, once they take guns away people are helpless. You can bet their future oppressors will have guns.

What will your "oppressors" do to you when they take away your guns?

Kill or enslave all dissenters. Just read the history of what Stalin or Hitler did, and there ya go.

Their motive for killing us is what? Try making some sense for a change. The govt. would kill us to help them invade Poland and the rest of Europe? If we`re slaves what will we produce and for whom?

You are not "us".

 

[danielpalos]

I do; there are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment; they are collective and plural.

Wrong.

You have already been corrected on that

Only individuals have rights

I do; there are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment; they are collective and plural.

Wrong

Only individuals have rights that is a fact

where does it say that?

In reality.

You should become acquainted with it.

you are making up right wing fantasy.

It is bit right or left wing

You have a knee jerk reaction to call any inconvenient facts right wing.

Very illogical and unreasonable but you are not very intelligent

Plain english proves you wrong and that is fact

you need more than fallacy to convince me.

 

[danielpalos]

The common defense appeals to the common law. We have no general defense clause.

The second amendment is not a defense clause one way or the other it is a clause protecting individual rights.

Our Second Amendment expressly declares it is about the security of a free State not your right wing fantasy.

No it does not

It expressly states it is the right of people which means individuals

Learn how to read English you retard

i do know how to read; it expressly declares it is about the security of a free State not individual rights, in the first clause. nowhere does it state it is about individual rights.

It is about individual rights as the second clause irrefutably proves.

It protects the rights of individuals and no one else which is what it says

there are no individual rights expressed in the second clause; the People is collective and plural as is the militia.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.

You have already been corrected on that

Only individuals have rights
Wrong

Only individuals have rights that is a fact

where does it say that?

In reality.

You should become acquainted with it.

you are making up right wing fantasy.

It is bit right or left wing

You have a knee jerk reaction to call any inconvenient facts right wing.

Very illogical and unreasonable but you are not very intelligent

Plain english proves you wrong and that is fact

you need more than fallacy to convince me.

I stated facts not fallacy.

I know you cannot be convinced but that is simply because you are immature and too childish to admit you are wrong or to think intelligently

 

[Soupnazi630]

The second amendment is not a defense clause one way or the other it is a clause protecting individual rights.

Our Second Amendment expressly declares it is about the security of a free State not your right wing fantasy.

No it does not

It expressly states it is the right of people which means individuals

Learn how to read English you retard

i do know how to read; it expressly declares it is about the security of a free State not individual rights, in the first clause. nowhere does it state it is about individual rights.

It is about individual rights as the second clause irrefutably proves.

It protects the rights of individuals and no one else which is what it says

there are no individual rights expressed in the second clause; the People is collective and plural as is the militia.

Wrong

The people refers to individuals and that is clear

Groups have no rights only individuals do

Simple english and reality which you lack the ability to conprehend

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes there are

Rights

Which only individuals have.

That is not right wing it is objective fact no matter how childishly you wish to ignore it

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights.

Wrong and absolutely proven wrong.

It is about individual rights and that is fact as the text proves

You are now simply a liar and fool.

projecting much? the first clause shows who the liar is.

No it does not

The first clause does not negate my statements the second clause negates your claims

You are a proven liar.

you need more than an appeal to ignorance.

True and I never appealed to ignorance I only stated facts which you cannot refute.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

They. Will. Never. Stop.

Gungrabbers never give up because they know, once they take guns away people are helpless. You can bet their future oppressors will have guns.

What will your "oppressors" do to you when they take away your guns?

why do want to take away guns from law abiding citizens
what are your reasons ?

Find a post of mine where I said I wanted to take away guns from law abiding citizens. I`ll wait.

then what do want ? whats the problem ?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Yes there are

Rights

Which only individuals have.

That is not right wing it is objective fact no matter how childishly you wish to ignore it

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights.

Wrong and absolutely proven wrong.

It is about individual rights and that is fact as the text proves

You are now simply a liar and fool.

projecting much? the first clause shows who the liar is.

No it does not

The first clause does not negate my statements the second clause negates your claims

You are a proven liar.

you need more than an appeal to ignorance.

And you need more than straight-up ignorance, bitch! STFU with the anti-America bullshit, faggot.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment expressly declares it is about the security of a free State not your right wing fantasy.

No it does not

It expressly states it is the right of people which means individuals

Learn how to read English you retard

i do know how to read; it expressly declares it is about the security of a free State not individual rights, in the first clause. nowhere does it state it is about individual rights.

It is about individual rights as the second clause irrefutably proves.

It protects the rights of individuals and no one else which is what it says

there are no individual rights expressed in the second clause; the People is collective and plural as is the militia.

Wrong

The people refers to individuals and that is clear

Groups have no rights only individuals do

Simple english and reality which you lack the ability to conprehend

no, it doesn't. both the people and the militia are plural and collective in regard to the security of our free States.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No it does not

It expressly states it is the right of people which means individuals

Learn how to read English you retard

i do know how to read; it expressly declares it is about the security of a free State not individual rights, in the first clause. nowhere does it state it is about individual rights.

It is about individual rights as the second clause irrefutably proves.

It protects the rights of individuals and no one else which is what it says

there are no individual rights expressed in the second clause; the People is collective and plural as is the militia.

Wrong

The people refers to individuals and that is clear

Groups have no rights only individuals do

Simple english and reality which you lack the ability to conprehend

no, it doesn't. both the people and the militia are plural and collective in regard to the security of our free States.

Yes it does and that is irrefutable.

It means individuals as only individuals have rights which is another fact you cannot refute,

The people means individual citizens'

 

[Marion Morrison]

No it does not

It expressly states it is the right of people which means individuals

Learn how to read English you retard

i do know how to read; it expressly declares it is about the security of a free State not individual rights, in the first clause. nowhere does it state it is about individual rights.

It is about individual rights as the second clause irrefutably proves.

It protects the rights of individuals and no one else which is what it says

there are no individual rights expressed in the second clause; the People is collective and plural as is the militia.

Wrong

The people refers to individuals and that is clear

Groups have no rights only individuals do

Simple english and reality which you lack the ability to conprehend

no, it doesn't. both the people and the militia are plural and collective in regard to the security of our free States.

STFU, dumbass!

" 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Soupnazi630]

In reality.

You should become acquainted with it.

you are making up right wing fantasy.

It is bit right or left wing

You have a knee jerk reaction to call any inconvenient facts right wing.

Very illogical and unreasonable but you are not very intelligent

Plain english proves you wrong and that is fact

you need more than fallacy to convince me.

I stated facts not fallacy.

I know you cannot be convinced but that is simply because you are immature and too childish to admit you are wrong or to think intelligently

you have no facts, only appeals to ignorance.

I stated facts and you know it and are simply a liar and coward

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong and absolutely proven wrong.

It is about individual rights and that is fact as the text proves

You are now simply a liar and fool.

projecting much? the first clause shows who the liar is.

No it does not

The first clause does not negate my statements the second clause negates your claims

You are a proven liar.

you need more than an appeal to ignorance.

And you need more than straight-up ignorance, bitch! STFU with the anti-America bullshit, faggot.

any hypocrite can say anything they want with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

Meaningless and ignorant partisan crap.

 

[danielpalos]

i do know how to read; it expressly declares it is about the security of a free State not individual rights, in the first clause. nowhere does it state it is about individual rights.

It is about individual rights as the second clause irrefutably proves.

It protects the rights of individuals and no one else which is what it says

there are no individual rights expressed in the second clause; the People is collective and plural as is the militia.

Wrong

The people refers to individuals and that is clear

Groups have no rights only individuals do

Simple english and reality which you lack the ability to conprehend

no, it doesn't. both the people and the militia are plural and collective in regard to the security of our free States.

Yes it does and that is irrefutable.

It means individuals as only individuals have rights which is another fact you cannot refute,

The people means individual citizens'

Our Second Amendment clearly states it is about the security of our free States not the rights of indivduals.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It is about individual rights as the second clause irrefutably proves.

It protects the rights of individuals and no one else which is what it says

there are no individual rights expressed in the second clause; the People is collective and plural as is the militia.

Wrong

The people refers to individuals and that is clear

Groups have no rights only individuals do

Simple english and reality which you lack the ability to conprehend

no, it doesn't. both the people and the militia are plural and collective in regard to the security of our free States.

Yes it does and that is irrefutable.

It means individuals as only individuals have rights which is another fact you cannot refute,

The people means individual citizens'

Our Second Amendment clearly states it is about the security of our free States not the rights of indivduals.

Your stupid too-broke-for-the-washy-washy ass opinion does not override the ruling of the Supreme Court of the US on this matter. Go Fuck Yourself. With a cactus.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER