Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Are the slower and stupider the most full of fallacy. Nothing but diversion? Why not explain, in your own words why you believe that is true; and, cite our Constitution for each and every assertion. Or, is a social, true witness bearing "work ethic" too difficult for the capitalist Right.Once again for the slow and stupid.... The 2nd amendment gives the right to be armed to the people. The mention of the militia is simply one of many reasons that is true.
It has been told to you a thousand times, read the fucking federalist papers the founders own words. Then check out the Supreme Courts ruling in Heller. The RIGHT to own firearms to keep and bear them is PERSONAL individual right, with no requirement to belong to or be eligible to belong to a militia. An English professor of some renown parsed the Amendment a well and stated that the operating clause is the part that gives the right to the people and that the militia part is just one of what could be NUMEROUS reasons to own firearms.Are the slower and stupider the most full of fallacy. Nothing but diversion? Why not explain, in your own words why you believe that is true; and, cite our Constitution for each and every assertion. Or, is a social, true witness bearing "work ethic" too difficult for the capitalist Right.Once again for the slow and stupid.... The 2nd amendment gives the right to be armed to the people. The mention of the militia is simply one of many reasons that is true.
Dude, with Appeals to Ignorance like that; I know All I need is a Fasces of Power to have y'all follow me to hell and back; if, we make it back.It has been told to you a thousand times, read the fucking federalist papers the founders own words. Then check out the Supreme Courts ruling in Heller. The RIGHT to own firearms to keep and bear them is PERSONAL individual right, with no requirement to belong to or be eligible to belong to a militia. An English professor of some renown parsed the Amendment a well and stated that the operating clause is the part that gives the right to the people and that the militia part is just one of what could be NUMEROUS reasons to own firearms.Are the slower and stupider the most full of fallacy. Nothing but diversion? Why not explain, in your own words why you believe that is true; and, cite our Constitution for each and every assertion. Or, is a social, true witness bearing "work ethic" too difficult for the capitalist Right.Once again for the slow and stupid.... The 2nd amendment gives the right to be armed to the people. The mention of the militia is simply one of many reasons that is true.
Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions. No rights in property are secured in our federal Constitution since it Only secures Due Process.
Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions. No rights in property are secured in our federal Constitution since it Only secures Due Process.
got a citation, as in court case for that?
In other words you do not do facts and just make your shit up wholesale, thanks for clearing that up.Dude, with Appeals to Ignorance like that; I know All I need is a Fasces of Power to have y'all follow me to hell and back; if, we make it back.It has been told to you a thousand times, read the fucking federalist papers the founders own words. Then check out the Supreme Courts ruling in Heller. The RIGHT to own firearms to keep and bear them is PERSONAL individual right, with no requirement to belong to or be eligible to belong to a militia. An English professor of some renown parsed the Amendment a well and stated that the operating clause is the part that gives the right to the people and that the militia part is just one of what could be NUMEROUS reasons to own firearms.Are the slower and stupider the most full of fallacy. Nothing but diversion? Why not explain, in your own words why you believe that is true; and, cite our Constitution for each and every assertion. Or, is a social, true witness bearing "work ethic" too difficult for the capitalist Right.Once again for the slow and stupid.... The 2nd amendment gives the right to be armed to the people. The mention of the militia is simply one of many reasons that is true.
Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions. No rights in property are secured in our federal Constitution since it Only secures Due Process.
got a citation, as in court case for that?
You are only encouraging him to waste time typing...
Once again for the slow and stupid.... The 2nd amendment gives the right to be armed to the people. The mention of the militia is simply one of many reasons that is true.
Ridiculous gibberish.Once again for the slow and stupid.... The 2nd amendment gives the right to be armed to the people. The mention of the militia is simply one of many reasons that is true.
One point here worth mentioning to those who wish to argue the constitutions, they do not give anything to the people.
They authorize certain powers to government and recorded the expressed rights reserved by the people to themselves. There is a huge distinction and this should never be stated in reverse because the constitution gives us nothing! It gives the government certain powers, nothing more.
Since the rights were reserved by the people for the people the government courts have no business using government judges to judge matters of the people.
I only need our supreme law of the land; is it too difficult for the Right to comprehend it?Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions. No rights in property are secured in our federal Constitution since it Only secures Due Process.
got a citation, as in court case for that?
I like to practice my social "work ethic" for free; unlike the lazy Right who Only come up with fallacies.Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions. No rights in property are secured in our federal Constitution since it Only secures Due Process.
got a citation, as in court case for that?
You are only encouraging him to waste time typing...
In other words, I Only resort to our supreme law of the land in my arguments because I am not lazy, like the Right.In other words you do not do facts and just make your shit up wholesale, thanks for clearing that up.Dude, with Appeals to Ignorance like that; I know All I need is a Fasces of Power to have y'all follow me to hell and back; if, we make it back.It has been told to you a thousand times, read the fucking federalist papers the founders own words. Then check out the Supreme Courts ruling in Heller. The RIGHT to own firearms to keep and bear them is PERSONAL individual right, with no requirement to belong to or be eligible to belong to a militia. An English professor of some renown parsed the Amendment a well and stated that the operating clause is the part that gives the right to the people and that the militia part is just one of what could be NUMEROUS reasons to own firearms.Are the slower and stupider the most full of fallacy. Nothing but diversion? Why not explain, in your own words why you believe that is true; and, cite our Constitution for each and every assertion. Or, is a social, true witness bearing "work ethic" too difficult for the capitalist Right.Once again for the slow and stupid.... The 2nd amendment gives the right to be armed to the people. The mention of the militia is simply one of many reasons that is true.
Ridiculous gibberish.Once again for the slow and stupid.... The 2nd amendment gives the right to be armed to the people. The mention of the militia is simply one of many reasons that is true.
One point here worth mentioning to those who wish to argue the constitutions, they do not give anything to the people.
They authorize certain powers to government and recorded the expressed rights reserved by the people to themselves. There is a huge distinction and this should never be stated in reverse because the constitution gives us nothing! It gives the government certain powers, nothing more.
Since the rights were reserved by the people for the people the government courts have no business using government judges to judge matters of the people.
The Constitution codifies our inalienable rights, rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
The Constitution’s case law determines the limits of government regulation, and the extent to which citizens’ rights might be restricted.
For well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era the courts were engaging in judicial review, where the Framing Generation fully expected the Federal courts to continue to determine the constitutionality of laws and measures enacted by government, and invalidate those repugnant to the Constitution, as authorized by Article VI of the Constitution.
I only need our supreme law of the land; is it too difficult for the Right to comprehend it?
Are you on the reading comprehension challenged Right? I told you it is in our supreme law of the land. Is that not a citation enough for you; or, is reading this thread too much "hard work" for those on the clueless and Causeless Right.I only need our supreme law of the land; is it too difficult for the Right to comprehend it?
Fine if you dont intend to support your claims, unfortunately it forces me to agree with the poster who warned me not to feed the trolls
Are you on the reading comprehension challenged Right? I told you it is in our supreme law of the land. Is that not a citation enough for you; or, is reading this thread too much "hard work" for those on the clueless and Causeless Right.I only need our supreme law of the land; is it too difficult for the Right to comprehend it?
Fine if you dont intend to support your claims, unfortunately it forces me to agree with the poster who warned me not to feed the trolls
Why should I care what the reading comprehension challenged believe if they are too lazy to even read a "one page" thread. Too much "hard work"?Are you on the reading comprehension challenged Right? I told you it is in our supreme law of the land. Is that not a citation enough for you; or, is reading this thread too much "hard work" for those on the clueless and Causeless Right.I only need our supreme law of the land; is it too difficult for the Right to comprehend it?
Fine if you dont intend to support your claims, unfortunately it forces me to agree with the poster who warned me not to feed the trolls
no its not citation enough for me. I am not a mind reader. Even if it were the right answer I want to see how you made or came to that conclusion. If you cannot describe the elements to your conclusion then again we default to those who labelled you a troll. Now, either cough it up or I move on.
