What would you do with the second amendment?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Lol. I resort to the fewest fallacies for my Cause; that makes me, more moral than those of the opposing view.

Not true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[danielpalos]

Lol. I resort to the fewest fallacies for my Cause; that makes me, more moral than those of the opposing view.

Not true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I only have to resort to one fallacy fewer, than You.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Lol. I resort to the fewest fallacies for my Cause; that makes me, more moral than those of the opposing view.

Not true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I only have to resort to one fallacy fewer, than You.

So, it is a score card? He who resorts to the fewest fallacies wins?

Forget that whole arguing thing. Just don't resort to fallacies?

He who makes no arguments relies on no fallacies.

You are a complete dumbass.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, it doesn't. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Not true, no matter how many times your commie ass repeats it.

Natural laws? What does a sick puppy like BLF know about natural laws? I suppose the right to hate is one he supports.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Natural laws? What does a sick puppy like BLF know about natural laws? I suppose the right to hate is one he supports

He never makes an argument and backs it up. He just repeats the same unintelligible nonsense without explaining, and he litters his repeatative diatribe with misplaced commas.

I am starting to think he is some right wing troll trying to make your side look stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment. Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[2aguy]

Thanks for sharing. I would pity you but for you arrogance and dishonesty.

You said that the second amendment applies to non-citizens (post #577), and you're asking what I'm talking about when I said the Constitution is for citizens. Then you call me dishonest. You're pathetic

The Second Amendment does not apply only to citizens! Only a damn liar will make that claim. Read the Bill of Rights without your biases and wishful thinking.

In fact the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

Be that as it may, Heller/McDonald is nonetheless the law of the land, establishing the Framers’ original understanding and intent of the Second Amendment.

And unlike most on the right, liberals respect the rule of law, are consistent in their support of the Supreme Court’s rulings, recognizing the Court’s authority to determine what the Constitution means, whether liberals agree with those rulings or not.

Yes....if they respect our Rights then explain the rulings from the 4th, 9th, 7th, and 2nd Circuit Courts of appeals the either completely ignore the legal Precedents from the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment, or deliberately misread them to come to their own conclusion...even after Alito bitch slapped them in Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia explained Heller again in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park...

You are lying......you know the left hate the Constitution and guns and that no law will keep them from banning them if they get the power.

Your use of the BIG LIE is getting old, guns will never be successfully banned, nor will abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, theft, or taxes. You will continue to piss and whine obsessively, but the facts belie every lie you tell.

Why don't you grow up? Why won't you admit there are too many school shootings and too many innocent kids murdered, for your point of view to be acceptable to socially conscious men and women.

Every mass murder results with your defense of guns, and not once did you demonstrate remorse for the dead or empathy for those who loved them. Why is that?

School shootings are going down in number, moron....and would be even lower but people like you need dead children to push gun control...that is why you fight armed guards in schools and why you fight allowing armed and trained staff from carrying guns...and also why you fight to keep democrat gun free zones....you need to keep law abiding gun owners out of the schools because they would keep mass shooters from attacking those schools.....you need dead kids, to push gun control...

You are an idiot.....virtue signaling is what you morons do to try to pretend you care.......

Lawn mowers kill more kids than school shooters do you asshat...do you want to ban lawn mowers? Cars kill more kids every year than all mass shootings kill all ages of people combined since 1982......do you want to ban them....?

You are an idiot....you are not a rational human being......that is why you want to ban guns while ignoring the 2.4 million times a year lives are saved with them......you are an idiot who doesn't think, you feel....which means the facts, the truth and the reality of gun ownership in America is beyond you...

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Why whine about taxes, right wingers?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Why whine about taxes, right wingers?

None of that bullshit makes any sense and you lack the language skills to explain it.
You think you are making an argument, but not even your own side will defend you.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Why whine about taxes, right wingers?

None of that bullshit makes any sense and you lack the language skills to explain it.
You think you are making an argument, but not even your own side will defend you.

ok. hypothetically and in that alternative,

State legislatures could simply direct the judiciary to add militia enrollment to their, Judicial discretion.

In that manner and fashion, gun lovers and other persons caught infringing upon the security of our free States, could simply be enrolled in the militia for a length time, commensurate with the offense. With that manpower means being establish, the ratio of organized militia to unorganized can be adjusted, according to need.

One result should be, better aqueducts, better firebreaks, better roads, and more well regulated militia.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Why whine about taxes, right wingers?

None of that bullshit makes any sense and you lack the language skills to explain it.
You think you are making an argument, but not even your own side will defend you.

ok. hypothetically and in that alternative,

State legislatures could simply direct the judiciary to add militia enrollment to their, Judicial discretion.

In that manner and fashion, gun lovers and other persons caught infringing upon the security of our free States, could simply be enrolled in the militia for a length time, commensurate with the offense. With that manpower means being establish, the ratio of organized militia to unorganized can be adjusted, according to need.

One result should be, better aqueducts, better firebreaks, better roads, and more well regulated militia.

What the fuck? You just made it more confusing.

People with guns are forced into involuntary military service to create fire breaks and aqueducts?

That makes even less sense than what you thped before....in the altrnative. You seriously lack the skills to explain yourself.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Why whine about taxes, right wingers?

None of that bullshit makes any sense and you lack the language skills to explain it.
You think you are making an argument, but not even your own side will defend you.

ok. hypothetically and in that alternative,

State legislatures could simply direct the judiciary to add militia enrollment to their, Judicial discretion.

In that manner and fashion, gun lovers and other persons caught infringing upon the security of our free States, could simply be enrolled in the militia for a length time, commensurate with the offense. With that manpower means being establish, the ratio of organized militia to unorganized can be adjusted, according to need.

One result should be, better aqueducts, better firebreaks, better roads, and more well regulated militia.

What the fuck? You just made it more confusing.

People with guns are forced into involuntary military service to create fire breaks and aqueducts?

That makes even less sense than what you thped before....in the altrnative. You seriously lack the skills to explain yourself.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment, right wingers.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You said that the second amendment applies to non-citizens (post #577), and you're asking what I'm talking about when I said the Constitution is for citizens. Then you call me dishonest. You're pathetic

The Second Amendment does not apply only to citizens! Only a damn liar will make that claim. Read the Bill of Rights without your biases and wishful thinking.

In fact the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

Be that as it may, Heller/McDonald is nonetheless the law of the land, establishing the Framers’ original understanding and intent of the Second Amendment.

And unlike most on the right, liberals respect the rule of law, are consistent in their support of the Supreme Court’s rulings, recognizing the Court’s authority to determine what the Constitution means, whether liberals agree with those rulings or not.

Yes....if they respect our Rights then explain the rulings from the 4th, 9th, 7th, and 2nd Circuit Courts of appeals the either completely ignore the legal Precedents from the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment, or deliberately misread them to come to their own conclusion...even after Alito bitch slapped them in Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia explained Heller again in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park...

You are lying......you know the left hate the Constitution and guns and that no law will keep them from banning them if they get the power.

Your use of the BIG LIE is getting old, guns will never be successfully banned, nor will abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, theft, or taxes. You will continue to piss and whine obsessively, but the facts belie every lie you tell.

Why don't you grow up? Why won't you admit there are too many school shootings and too many innocent kids murdered, for your point of view to be acceptable to socially conscious men and women.

Every mass murder results with your defense of guns, and not once did you demonstrate remorse for the dead or empathy for those who loved them. Why is that?

School shootings are going down in number, moron....and would be even lower but people like you need dead children to push gun control...that is why you fight armed guards in schools and why you fight allowing armed and trained staff from carrying guns...and also why you fight to keep democrat gun free zones....you need to keep law abiding gun owners out of the schools because they would keep mass shooters from attacking those schools.....you need dead kids, to push gun control...

You are an idiot.....virtue signaling is what you morons do to try to pretend you care.......

Lawn mowers kill more kids than school shooters do you asshat...do you want to ban lawn mowers? Cars kill more kids every year than all mass shootings kill all ages of people combined since 1982......do you want to ban them....?

You are an idiot....you are not a rational human being......that is why you want to ban guns while ignoring the 2.4 million times a year lives are saved with them......you are an idiot who doesn't think, you feel....which means the facts, the truth and the reality of gun ownership in America is beyond you...

2.4 million lives saved. Yet only one instance has been reported. Do we need to sit while you repeat this 2.4 million times so you can make that claim? One, just one. And the reason school shootings are going down......well.......no....they aren't. They are the rage right now. But many are being thwarted and not by arming the teachers. there are 57 dead or wounded students last year from accidental school shootings. Sounds like arming the teachers is more deadly than the mass school shootings themselves. How about coming up with the same fixes we have around here where we have reduced the school shootings to Zero. Not that a couple haven't tried. But one almost made it to the front gate of the school before he was dropped to the ground before he could even get his weapon out of his rain coat.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment, right wingers.

That statement you typed means that right wingers are arguing that nobody knows what the 1sr clause is, so they win. That is clearly not the case, which demonstrates that you do not understand the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

You are not making arguments. You are stating nonsense that nobody understands.

Do you understand what I am telling you?

Apparently you do not understand what you are stating. The other gun haters on here do not even understand the nonsense you are typing.

Understand?

It makes no sense.

I am not even saying that you are wrong. I am telling you that no English speaker comprehends what message or argument you are trying to convey.

Have I made that clear enough?

You are not using English in a comprehensible way.

Understand?

 

[2aguy]

The Second Amendment does not apply only to citizens! Only a damn liar will make that claim. Read the Bill of Rights without your biases and wishful thinking.

In fact the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

Be that as it may, Heller/McDonald is nonetheless the law of the land, establishing the Framers’ original understanding and intent of the Second Amendment.

And unlike most on the right, liberals respect the rule of law, are consistent in their support of the Supreme Court’s rulings, recognizing the Court’s authority to determine what the Constitution means, whether liberals agree with those rulings or not.

Yes....if they respect our Rights then explain the rulings from the 4th, 9th, 7th, and 2nd Circuit Courts of appeals the either completely ignore the legal Precedents from the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment, or deliberately misread them to come to their own conclusion...even after Alito bitch slapped them in Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia explained Heller again in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park...

You are lying......you know the left hate the Constitution and guns and that no law will keep them from banning them if they get the power.

Your use of the BIG LIE is getting old, guns will never be successfully banned, nor will abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, theft, or taxes. You will continue to piss and whine obsessively, but the facts belie every lie you tell.

Why don't you grow up? Why won't you admit there are too many school shootings and too many innocent kids murdered, for your point of view to be acceptable to socially conscious men and women.

Every mass murder results with your defense of guns, and not once did you demonstrate remorse for the dead or empathy for those who loved them. Why is that?

School shootings are going down in number, moron....and would be even lower but people like you need dead children to push gun control...that is why you fight armed guards in schools and why you fight allowing armed and trained staff from carrying guns...and also why you fight to keep democrat gun free zones....you need to keep law abiding gun owners out of the schools because they would keep mass shooters from attacking those schools.....you need dead kids, to push gun control...

You are an idiot.....virtue signaling is what you morons do to try to pretend you care.......

Lawn mowers kill more kids than school shooters do you asshat...do you want to ban lawn mowers? Cars kill more kids every year than all mass shootings kill all ages of people combined since 1982......do you want to ban them....?

You are an idiot....you are not a rational human being......that is why you want to ban guns while ignoring the 2.4 million times a year lives are saved with them......you are an idiot who doesn't think, you feel....which means the facts, the truth and the reality of gun ownership in America is beyond you...

2.4 million lives saved. Yet only one instance has been reported. Do we need to sit while you repeat this 2.4 million times so you can make that claim? One, just one. And the reason school shootings are going down......well.......no....they aren't. They are the rage right now. But many are being thwarted and not by arming the teachers. there are 57 dead or wounded students last year from accidental school shootings. Sounds like arming the teachers is more deadly than the mass school shootings themselves. How about coming up with the same fixes we have around here where we have reduced the school shootings to Zero. Not that a couple haven't tried. But one almost made it to the front gate of the school before he was dropped to the ground before he could even get his weapon out of his rain coat.

Actual research shows they are going down, not up....and thanks to you guys and your deification of the Parkland Survivors and the CNN Town Hall, the Rallies across the country and the school walk outs......you gave copycats something to shoot for........all of that commotion because someone walked into a gun free zone and murdered people.....and they want that kind of achievement too.....that is on you....

Yeah, those accidental school shootings crap.....you would have to link to the lying, anti gun site that listed those so we can see the guy who committed suicide in a school parking lot...when the school had been closed for 6 months, and the kid hit by the bb pellet........you can't lie about these events, we can actually check them now.....

As to how many times Americans use their guns to stop criminals....here is the actual research over 41 years...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 2.46 million each of those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Be that as it may, Heller/McDonald is nonetheless the law of the land, establishing the Framers’ original understanding and intent of the Second Amendment.

And unlike most on the right, liberals respect the rule of law, are consistent in their support of the Supreme Court’s rulings, recognizing the Court’s authority to determine what the Constitution means, whether liberals agree with those rulings or not.

Yes....if they respect our Rights then explain the rulings from the 4th, 9th, 7th, and 2nd Circuit Courts of appeals the either completely ignore the legal Precedents from the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment, or deliberately misread them to come to their own conclusion...even after Alito bitch slapped them in Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia explained Heller again in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park...

You are lying......you know the left hate the Constitution and guns and that no law will keep them from banning them if they get the power.

Your use of the BIG LIE is getting old, guns will never be successfully banned, nor will abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, theft, or taxes. You will continue to piss and whine obsessively, but the facts belie every lie you tell.

Why don't you grow up? Why won't you admit there are too many school shootings and too many innocent kids murdered, for your point of view to be acceptable to socially conscious men and women.

Every mass murder results with your defense of guns, and not once did you demonstrate remorse for the dead or empathy for those who loved them. Why is that?

School shootings are going down in number, moron....and would be even lower but people like you need dead children to push gun control...that is why you fight armed guards in schools and why you fight allowing armed and trained staff from carrying guns...and also why you fight to keep democrat gun free zones....you need to keep law abiding gun owners out of the schools because they would keep mass shooters from attacking those schools.....you need dead kids, to push gun control...

You are an idiot.....virtue signaling is what you morons do to try to pretend you care.......

Lawn mowers kill more kids than school shooters do you asshat...do you want to ban lawn mowers? Cars kill more kids every year than all mass shootings kill all ages of people combined since 1982......do you want to ban them....?

You are an idiot....you are not a rational human being......that is why you want to ban guns while ignoring the 2.4 million times a year lives are saved with them......you are an idiot who doesn't think, you feel....which means the facts, the truth and the reality of gun ownership in America is beyond you...

2.4 million lives saved. Yet only one instance has been reported. Do we need to sit while you repeat this 2.4 million times so you can make that claim? One, just one. And the reason school shootings are going down......well.......no....they aren't. They are the rage right now. But many are being thwarted and not by arming the teachers. there are 57 dead or wounded students last year from accidental school shootings. Sounds like arming the teachers is more deadly than the mass school shootings themselves. How about coming up with the same fixes we have around here where we have reduced the school shootings to Zero. Not that a couple haven't tried. But one almost made it to the front gate of the school before he was dropped to the ground before he could even get his weapon out of his rain coat.

Actual research shows they are going down, not up....and thanks to you guys and your deification of the Parkland Survivors and the CNN Town Hall, the Rallies across the country and the school walk outs......you gave copycats something to shoot for........all of that commotion because someone walked into a gun free zone and murdered people.....and they want that kind of achievement too.....that is on you....

Yeah, those accidental school shootings crap.....you would have to link to the lying, anti gun site that listed those so we can see the guy who committed suicide in a school parking lot...when the school had been closed for 6 months, and the kid hit by the bb pellet........you can't lie about these events, we can actually check them now.....

As to how many times Americans use their guns to stop criminals....here is the actual research over 41 years...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 2.46 million each of those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Please excuse 2aguy, he is obsessed with guns, and hasn't a lick of empathy for those killed or wounded and those who love them. He loves guns, and the love of such an object is a fettish. Likely the poor fool doesn't realize how mentally disturbed he is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment, right wingers.

That statement you typed means that right wingers are arguing that nobody knows what the 1sr clause is, so they win. That is clearly not the case, which demonstrates that you do not understand the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

You are not making arguments. You are stating nonsense that nobody understands.

Do you understand what I am telling you?

Apparently you do not understand what you are stating. The other gun haters on here do not even understand the nonsense you are typing.

Understand?

It makes no sense.

I am not even saying that you are wrong. I am telling you that no English speaker comprehends what message or argument you are trying to convey.

Have I made that clear enough?

You are not using English in a comprehensible way.

Understand?

Your first paragraph is bullshit, that is an ignorant person's lie.

Here are some arguments by educated people who understand English Grammar:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

Second Amendment

There are dozens more, try not to remain willfully ignorant, and more people will not consider you stupid.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment, right wingers.

That statement you typed means that right wingers are arguing that nobody knows what the 1sr clause is, so they win. That is clearly not the case, which demonstrates that you do not understand the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

You are not making arguments. You are stating nonsense that nobody understands.

Do you understand what I am telling you?

Apparently you do not understand what you are stating. The other gun haters on here do not even understand the nonsense you are typing.

Understand?

It makes no sense.

I am not even saying that you are wrong. I am telling you that no English speaker comprehends what message or argument you are trying to convey.

Have I made that clear enough?

You are not using English in a comprehensible way.

Understand?

Your first paragraph is bullshit, that is an ignorant person's lie.

Here are some arguments by educated people who understand English Grammar:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

Second Amendment

There are dozens more, try not to remain willfully ignorant, and more people will not consider you stupid.

You have clearly never read Heller.

You are not qualified to discuss this subject.

 

[2aguy]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment, right wingers.

That statement you typed means that right wingers are arguing that nobody knows what the 1sr clause is, so they win. That is clearly not the case, which demonstrates that you do not understand the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

You are not making arguments. You are stating nonsense that nobody understands.

Do you understand what I am telling you?

Apparently you do not understand what you are stating. The other gun haters on here do not even understand the nonsense you are typing.

Understand?

It makes no sense.

I am not even saying that you are wrong. I am telling you that no English speaker comprehends what message or argument you are trying to convey.

Have I made that clear enough?

You are not using English in a comprehensible way.

Understand?

Your first paragraph is bullshit, that is an ignorant person's lie.

Here are some arguments by educated people who understand English Grammar:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

Second Amendment

There are dozens more, try not to remain willfully ignorant, and more people will not consider you stupid.

Twit.....D.C. v Heller states that you are wrong, as is your link....it discusses the grammar of the 2nd Amendment too.....and it has the bonus provision of being a Supreme Court ruling that states the 2nd Amendment guarantees gun Rights....you doofus.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 19.....

A pre exisitng right

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16
------------------------

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment, right wingers.

That statement you typed means that right wingers are arguing that nobody knows what the 1sr clause is, so they win. That is clearly not the case, which demonstrates that you do not understand the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

You are not making arguments. You are stating nonsense that nobody understands.

Do you understand what I am telling you?

Apparently you do not understand what you are stating. The other gun haters on here do not even understand the nonsense you are typing.

Understand?

It makes no sense.

I am not even saying that you are wrong. I am telling you that no English speaker comprehends what message or argument you are trying to convey.

Have I made that clear enough?

You are not using English in a comprehensible way.

Understand?

Your first paragraph is bullshit, that is an ignorant person's lie.

Here are some arguments by educated people who understand English Grammar:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

Second Amendment

There are dozens more, try not to remain willfully ignorant, and more people will not consider you stupid.

Twit.....D.C. v Heller states that you are wrong, as is your link....it discusses the grammar of the 2nd Amendment too.....and it has the bonus provision of being a Supreme Court ruling that states the 2nd Amendment guarantees gun Rights....you doofus.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 19.....

A pre exisitng right

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16
------------------------

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Nice cherry picking. It also says that the "Right" is NOT absolute. You left out that whole section. I won't bore you with the reposting of it since any and all may just read the link. Of course you are hoping that most won't and will just take your word for it. This had to do with D.C. and D.C. only. It did not apply to the States. The States may make their own laws but D.C. must rely on the Federal Government for it's higher laws since it is not a State. And it applies to normal Handguns in the Homes only. It all came about when the D.C. Council tried to completely outlaw all Guns. The Ruling by Scotus was that they could not outlaw normal handguns in the homes and could not require them to be disassembled or have mandatory trigger guards. It also covered transporting them guns and the ammo. It did not give you the right to wear your gun outside of your home or even in your yard. I believe the same argument could be made for Hunting Rifles and normal Shotguns as well so no one in D.C. has press for that.

You gun nutters keep bringing this up. And it keeps making you look bad. Aren't there better arguments out there?