Biden says “No Amendment to the Constitution is absolute”

[danielpalos]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

How did you reach your conclusion? That concept is covered by our federal and some State Constitutions. You merely appeal to ignorance as is typical of the right-wing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

 

[Hum Dinger]

You would think after all of these years being coddled in public service, saying racist things about black people, and sexually harrassing women, that Joe Biden would have gotten around to reading the Constitution. Obviously he has not. By our nation's design, The Bill of Rights is untouchable. We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing. What an idiot.

You're mixing up 'Inalienable Rights' as mentioned in the declaration of independence, and Constitutional rights.

ANY amendment to the Constitution can be amended by a new amendment. Many have been.

Article one of the Bill of rights was never ratified. Article two was only ratified in 1992.

Articles 3-12 were ratified in 1791. Those 'rights' apparently didn't exist before then.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is no such thing as a "constitutional right", and never can be.
There are a gazillion reasons for this.
First of all, rights have to exist first, before they could ever be made into law.
Otherwise no one would have the authority to make the legislation, like the Bill of Rights.
But the Bill of Rights clearly says it is not creating any rights, that rights can't be created, that they have to always exist, can not be taken away, and that they are infinite and innumerable.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to create restrictions on the federal government, not to list rights.

With the link to the history of the Bill of Rights, you are confusing the wording with the theory.
For example, the fact slavery existed does not change the fact everyone always knew it was wrong.
Lots of people do things they know are wrong, like rob banks, cheat on taxes, lie about Iraqi WMD, the War on Drugs, federal firearm laws, etc.
So the Bill of Rights final wording was a compromise, not something idealized or perfect.
Everyone knew it was flawed, and the 14the amendment had to later try to fix it.

In summary, there has to be an over reaching concept of rights that justifies any legislation.
That is how the SCOTUS can decide legislation, including amendments, could be illegal.

A very idealistic, but unrealistic view of rights.

In reality, once a person is born, the only right they have is the right to die.

All other rights are theoretical constructs agreed upon in some sort of social contract.

"We the people..." have agreed on the rights in the Constitution.

Americans in general have agreed upon the concept of "Inalienable Rights" as stated in the Declaration of Independence".

These are all social constructs... they do not really exist in nature.

Did the Jews in 1930s Germany have such rights?

We have rights because WE ALL AGREE THAT WE HAVE RIGHTS.

But mostly we tend to disagree that other people have rights!

Sure all rights are social constructs.
But that does not mean they are arbitrary.
They have evolved out of our understanding of the instincts in our DNA.
For example, if we were not social, herbivore, primates originally, and had evolved from canine predators, our sense of rights likely would be very different.
They are an understanding of what minimizes social friction and maximizes social freedom, within our primate hereditary instincts.
For example, how do we know we have a right to life?
Because if you try to take the life of anyone, they not only will strongly try to resist and cause you harm, but empathy will cause the taking of life to harm many others as well.

The Holocaust is a lot more complicated than that.
Did you know that it was Zionist traitors in Germany who caused them to lose WWI, that it was very unfair, that it was the Allies that were in the wrong, and that the Allies committed massive war crimes against Germany in order to win?
Zionists like Chaim Weizmann and David ben Gurion gave the Allies the formula for synthetic acetone for cordite explosive, and stole the Zimmerman letter to get the US into the war. In return the British gave the Zionists the Balfour Declaration, over a Palestine the British had no authority to give. The Germans did not start WWI, but the Russians assassinated Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, and the French invaded Germany first. The means of making Germany surrender was the illegal embargo of civilian food, murdering millions of Germans through starvation, a war crime since 1906.

Science is what should be used to determine rights.
We often instead go by simple majority rule, but that is obviously foolish and wrong.
There is a scientific basis for rights that any anthropologist or philosopher can easily understand.
The problem is politicians and lawyers tend to be liars.

You're right about how our understanding of rights is based on our social evolution.

However, to this day, most people only care about their own rights and couldn't care less about other people's rights. We've agreed on social contracts, like the Constitution, that are SUPPOSED to mean that everyone respects each other's rights, but most people are only concerned with their own rights.

Your understanding of how & why WWI ended is perverse and inaccurate. Germany lost WWI because the Kaiser was an idiot and an asshole. He was well advantaged to negotiate a peace as early as 1914, but he refused anything less than total victory - which by the end of 1914 was impossible.

It's true that the French were the first to attack - a very short incursion into Germany. But, that did not give any validity for Germany's massive attack against Belgium - which is what drew the U.K. into the war.

Given the dependency of Germany on importing food through the North Sea, starting a war with the U.K. was idiotic. Of course, the British Navy was going to blockade the North Sea...anybody that expected less would have been a moron.

The allies may have committed war crimes against Germany, but Germany committed massive war crimes - especially against the Belgium people. Germany also introduced chemical warfare - another massive war crime.

Any German with a brain know that Germany was going to lose the war - they were running out of man power. The Americans were on the verge of sending massive amounts of troops. If the war had continued, the German Army would have suffered a massive defeat and Germany would have been invaded.

The Kaiser was forced out of power by a huge consortium of intelligent, pro-democracy people. Not just Jews.

Dumbass Germans liked to believe that it was just Jews that were responsible, but in truth, since the spread of Lutherianism many Germans were categorically anti-semetic. Matin Luther hated Jews. Hilter amplified that hatred.

If the Germans had a collective brain, they never would have invaded Belgium. The U.K. would have never entered the war. They would have had a stand-off along the French border and they could have quickly defeated the Russians. Then they could have negotiated peace with France.

The truly amazing thing is that the Germans learned NOTHING from their mistakes in WWI. They repeated their stupidity, amplified, in WWII. Germany was all but destroyed.

Seems that the Aryan race is the stupidiest of all, not the superior race that they believed.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

Yes, I know, you slobbering leftist dullards always think you've sputtered something profound, and the problem is that everyone else is just not smart enough to appreciate you.

It's a good thing you all have such rich fantasy lives to counter the reality in which people are laughing at you.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

Yes, I know, you slobbering leftist dullards always think you've sputtered something profound, and the problem is that everyone else is just not smart enough to appreciate you.

It's a good thing you all have such rich fantasy lives to counter the reality in which people are laughing at you.

The Trump cult isn't smart enough, they're dumber than their dear leader.

That takes talent.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

Yes, I know, you slobbering leftist dullards always think you've sputtered something profound, and the problem is that everyone else is just not smart enough to appreciate you.

It's a good thing you all have such rich fantasy lives to counter the reality in which people are laughing at you.

The Trump cult isn't smart enough, they're dumber than their dear leader.

That takes talent.

All I'm hearing at this point is, "Blah blah blah, gotta make myself feel smart, blah blah blah."

Move along and make room for someone with something to say, ankle-biter.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

Yes, I know, you slobbering leftist dullards always think you've sputtered something profound, and the problem is that everyone else is just not smart enough to appreciate you.

It's a good thing you all have such rich fantasy lives to counter the reality in which people are laughing at you.

The Trump cult isn't smart enough, they're dumber than their dear leader.

That takes talent.

after these past few months, biden makes Trump look brilliant and biden's followers like morons

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

Yes, I know, you slobbering leftist dullards always think you've sputtered something profound, and the problem is that everyone else is just not smart enough to appreciate you.

It's a good thing you all have such rich fantasy lives to counter the reality in which people are laughing at you.

The Trump cult isn't smart enough, they're dumber than their dear leader.

That takes talent.

after these past few months, biden makes Trump look brilliant and biden's followers like morons

Of course Trump is "brilliant", a "genius" in fact.

“Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” Trump continued.
"I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star… to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!”

You don't even need to ask him.

TRUMP: I like this stuff. I really get it… every one of these doctors said, ‘how do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.

Yes, he does.

"So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing," Trump said, speaking to Bryan during the briefing. "And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too."
"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

Yes, I know, you slobbering leftist dullards always think you've sputtered something profound, and the problem is that everyone else is just not smart enough to appreciate you.

It's a good thing you all have such rich fantasy lives to counter the reality in which people are laughing at you.

The Trump cult isn't smart enough, they're dumber than their dear leader.

That takes talent.

after these past few months, biden makes Trump look brilliant and biden's followers like morons

Of course Trump is "brilliant", a "genius" in fact.

“Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” Trump continued.
"I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star… to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!”

You don't even need to ask him.

TRUMP: I like this stuff. I really get it… every one of these doctors said, ‘how do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.

Yes, he does.

"So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing," Trump said, speaking to Bryan during the briefing. "And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too."
"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

biden and his cult followers make it look ever so true
1. blue light does kill viruses
2. the disinfected thing was also proven true.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

1 amendment does not mean the 1st amendment dumbass.
Maybe you should take you own advice but don't sniff and hold that grade school age kid like your cult leader has been caught doing

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

Yes, I know, you slobbering leftist dullards always think you've sputtered something profound, and the problem is that everyone else is just not smart enough to appreciate you.

It's a good thing you all have such rich fantasy lives to counter the reality in which people are laughing at you.

The Trump cult isn't smart enough, they're dumber than their dear leader.

That takes talent.

after these past few months, biden makes Trump look brilliant and biden's followers like morons

Of course Trump is "brilliant", a "genius" in fact.

“Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” Trump continued.
"I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star… to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!”

You don't even need to ask him.

TRUMP: I like this stuff. I really get it… every one of these doctors said, ‘how do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.

Yes, he does.

"So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing," Trump said, speaking to Bryan during the briefing. "And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too."
"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

biden and his cult followers make it look ever so true
1. blue light does kill viruses
2. the disinfected thing was also proven true.

Of course it has, ON SURFACES.

It also works as a vaccine, give a shot or just put it in your next gallon of orange kool-ade.

It has the Dr. Trump seal of approval.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

1 amendment does not mean the 1st amendment dumbass.
Maybe you should take you own advice but don't sniff and hold that grade school age kid like your cult leader has been caught doing

Still hung up on that?

At least I admitted my mistake, thanked you for clearing it up, something the Trump cult never does, they double down on stupidity.

Go back to '57 states', that was so effective,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

Yes, I know, you slobbering leftist dullards always think you've sputtered something profound, and the problem is that everyone else is just not smart enough to appreciate you.

It's a good thing you all have such rich fantasy lives to counter the reality in which people are laughing at you.

The Trump cult isn't smart enough, they're dumber than their dear leader.

That takes talent.

after these past few months, biden makes Trump look brilliant and biden's followers like morons

Of course Trump is "brilliant", a "genius" in fact.

“Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” Trump continued.
"I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star… to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!”

You don't even need to ask him.

TRUMP: I like this stuff. I really get it… every one of these doctors said, ‘how do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.

Yes, he does.

"So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing," Trump said, speaking to Bryan during the briefing. "And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too."
"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

biden and his cult followers make it look ever so true
1. blue light does kill viruses
2. the disinfected thing was also proven true.

Of course it has, ON SURFACES.

It also works as a vaccine, give a shot or just put it in your next gallon of orange kool-ade.

It has the Dr. Trump seal of approval.

It's a terrible thing when doctors start playing politics with healthcare.
"The combination, if used early, is effective, safe and not expensive, and I've had it work in my patients," Goldman told members of an AMA reference committee on science and public health. "But I've had problems getting hydroxychloroquine because pharmacies refuse to dispense it."

AMA Policy Throws Shade on Diehard HCQ Docs

Delegates urge AMA to rescind policy discouraging the drug for COVID-19 patients; both sides say it's politics

www.medpagetoday.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

1 amendment does not mean the 1st amendment dumbass.
Maybe you should take you own advice but don't sniff and hold that grade school age kid like your cult leader has been caught doing

Still hung up on that?

At least I admitted my mistake, thanked you for clearing it up, something the Trump cult never does, they double down on stupidity.

Go back to '57 states', that was so effective,

just making sure you don't make the same mistake chance comprehend what you read before you comment on it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No right is absolute because all rights are a balance between individual freedom and any conflict you might cause in the rights of others.

But that is irrelevant when it comes to the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is a bad name for it because it contains no rights at all.
It instead only contains restrictions on the federal government.
And restrictions on the federal government most certainly can be absolute.
When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

Most state government have a similar 2nd amendment set up, thus they are still restricted too.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

Yes, I know, you slobbering leftist dullards always think you've sputtered something profound, and the problem is that everyone else is just not smart enough to appreciate you.

It's a good thing you all have such rich fantasy lives to counter the reality in which people are laughing at you.

The Trump cult isn't smart enough, they're dumber than their dear leader.

That takes talent.

after these past few months, biden makes Trump look brilliant and biden's followers like morons

Of course Trump is "brilliant", a "genius" in fact.

“Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” Trump continued.
"I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star… to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!”

You don't even need to ask him.

TRUMP: I like this stuff. I really get it… every one of these doctors said, ‘how do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.

Yes, he does.

"So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing," Trump said, speaking to Bryan during the briefing. "And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too."
"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

biden and his cult followers make it look ever so true
1. blue light does kill viruses
2. the disinfected thing was also proven true.

Of course it has, ON SURFACES.

It also works as a vaccine, give a shot or just put it in your next gallon of orange kool-ade.

It has the Dr. Trump seal of approval.

It's a terrible thing when doctors start playing politics with healthcare.
"The combination, if used early, is effective, safe and not expensive, and I've had it work in my patients," Goldman told members of an AMA reference committee on science and public health. "But I've had problems getting hydroxychloroquine because pharmacies refuse to dispense it."

AMA Policy Throws Shade on Diehard HCQ Docs

Delegates urge AMA to rescind policy discouraging the drug for COVID-19 patients; both sides say it's politics

www.medpagetoday.com

So, you use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on surfaces to disinfect them?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

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

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the **** is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.

No, words make no sense strung together in a sentence.

It happens with illiterate leftists.

Pretty simple sentence.

Catch a grade school kid to explain it to you.

The Trump cult has to rely on them, most of the time.

Yes, I know, you slobbering leftist dullards always think you've sputtered something profound, and the problem is that everyone else is just not smart enough to appreciate you.

It's a good thing you all have such rich fantasy lives to counter the reality in which people are laughing at you.

The Trump cult isn't smart enough, they're dumber than their dear leader.

That takes talent.

after these past few months, biden makes Trump look brilliant and biden's followers like morons

Of course Trump is "brilliant", a "genius" in fact.

“Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” Trump continued.
"I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star… to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!”

You don't even need to ask him.

TRUMP: I like this stuff. I really get it… every one of these doctors said, ‘how do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.

Yes, he does.

"So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing," Trump said, speaking to Bryan during the briefing. "And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too."
"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

biden and his cult followers make it look ever so true
1. blue light does kill viruses
2. the disinfected thing was also proven true.

Of course it has, ON SURFACES.

It also works as a vaccine, give a shot or just put it in your next gallon of orange kool-ade.

It has the Dr. Trump seal of approval.

It's a terrible thing when doctors start playing politics with healthcare.
"The combination, if used early, is effective, safe and not expensive, and I've had it work in my patients," Goldman told members of an AMA reference committee on science and public health. "But I've had problems getting hydroxychloroquine because pharmacies refuse to dispense it."

AMA Policy Throws Shade on Diehard HCQ Docs

Delegates urge AMA to rescind policy discouraging the drug for COVID-19 patients; both sides say it's politics

www.medpagetoday.com

So, you use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on surfaces to disinfect them?

your argument was that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective take it up with the doctor who uses it and says it works
get that TDS checked you have an inability to stay on point.

 

[SweetTea]

HCQ has been proven effective when give at the correct time and in the correct dosage. Also, it is not dangerous. The media, and unfortunately many in the medical community as well as the CDC flat out lied because they didn’t want Trump to get any credit for mentioning it AND the politicians likely had their hands in the HUGE money jar the pharmeceutials promised to fill if they were given the ability to create a saving vaccine. On a more cenacle note, I would like to think crooked Democrats wouldn’t have allowed this to spread and for people to die to wreck the economy and get Trump out of office. I have my doubts that they wouldn’t stoop that low.

What I fail to understand is why more American doctors who knew better about HCQ didn’t speak out. We all know that scientsits sold their integrrity years ago and will magically find support for nearly anything if given enough funding. Sadly, this may have permeated into the medical community as well. Indoctrination works, that is a simple truth.

 

[danielpalos]

Most state government have a similar 2nd amendment set up, thus they are still restricted too.

That is why our Second Amendment expressly declares what is Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.

Otherwise, this is a sovereign right of every free State of our Union:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)