Gun control vs. Terrorism (Dem hypocrisy)

[danielpalos]

dude, even Texas was not that slow.

If that is intended a some sort of insult, the joke is on you. I am a native Texas and I am Uganda-Raping you in this discussion. Texans are quicker than you, at least.

It is about the security of a free State; it says so in our Second Amendment.

So, the 2nd Amendment was only established for the security of a free state. It had nothing to do with NOT infringing on the right of the people? Is that really the argument you are going for?

Again:

A well-balanced diet, being necessary for good health, the right of the people to obtain and eat fruits and vegetables shall not be infringed.

The purpose of that statement is securing a well-balanced diet, or was it to make sure that people had the right to fruits and vegetables?

Will you please use logic in your response, and not your bullshit buzzphrases?

It says, to not Infringe on those Necessary to the security of a free State.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only the right wing, never gets it.

You just can't argue worth a shit, can you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not the one who is confused

Inalienable or natural rights do not have to be sanctioned by government as they exist within each person

Yes, you are the one confused. Private justice is not public or social justice. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Self defense is not private justice.

Yes, it is.

Public justice is holding the perpetrator until police arrive and that person gets a trial.

No it is not. You are confusing vigilantism with self defense

natural rights for private citizens equals private justice not social justice.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

No you are the only one who doesn't get it.

And there is no such thing as "social justice"

Killing in self defense if perfectly legal and has nothing to do with justice. You think killing in self defense is illegal

Getting personal justice as you call it it is vigilantism

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't. Just lousy right wing, reading comprehension?

The Intent and Purpose Clause, leads the way.

Intent and purpose do not change the restriction. You seem to have reading comprehension issues.

Again....


Well-balanced diet is necessary, people have the right to fruits and vegetables.

What does that actually DO???

(say "it restricts the fed gov from infringing on the people's rights." You can do it.)

Those Necessary to the Security of a free State shall not be Infringed. It really is that simple, dears.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right wing, never gets it.

You just can't argue worth a shit, can you?

You are the ones with nothing but repeal; simple rejection is not a valid refutation and is a fallacy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

self defense is private justice, sanctioned by law.

Self-defense is self-defense. It is action in preserving one's life. It could be an affirmative defense against a murder or assault charge in a criminal action, but it is separate and apart from any legal concept of justice.

Justice is an administration--nothing more.

Let me guess. You think you're a lawyer, don't you?

 

[danielpalos]

I already told you. It did not make sense to you then. It is about the command economics and the cost of our exorbitantly expensive superpower; and the right wing having a Republican Doctrine.

Now do you understand, dear.

I have give COUNTLESS quotes from Founders showing that they feared a standing army. Economics may have been a factor, but their words do not indicate such. They feared the tyranny that a professional standing army could cause.

Do you want me to fill up this thread with more quotes? I don't want to have to beat your ass AGAIN, but I will. You are decidedly WRONG on the economics angle.

Command economics is a requirement for a Standing Army.

Only the right wing is too clueless and too Causeless, to ever get it.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, you are the one confused. Private justice is not public or social justice. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Self defense is not private justice.

Yes, it is.

Public justice is holding the perpetrator until police arrive and that person gets a trial.

No it is not. You are confusing vigilantism with self defense

natural rights for private citizens equals private justice not social justice.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

No you are the only one who doesn't get it.

And there is no such thing as "social justice"

Killing in self defense if perfectly legal and has nothing to do with justice. You think killing in self defense is illegal

Getting personal justice as you call it it is vigilantism

only in right wing fantasy. the concept of social justice exists and is taught in tertiary education.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You are the ones with nothing but repeal; simple rejection is not a valid refutation and is a fallacy.

First, what the **** do you mean by "nothing but repeal"?

It is not simple rejection. We are pointing out your failure to demonstrate how your reasoning lines up with the text and history surrounding the 2A.
Your responses have been:

Clueless and causeless

Only, the right, wing get, it. Let't go eat grandma.

Nothing but repeal.



What is your response?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only the right wing is too clueless and too Causeless, to ever get it.

Typical communist response: "You're just not smart enough to get it."

 

[danielpalos]

self defense is private justice, sanctioned by law.

Self-defense is self-defense. It is action in preserving one's life. It could be an affirmative defense against a murder or assault charge in a criminal action, but it is separate and apart from any legal concept of justice.

Justice is an administration--nothing more.

Let me guess. You think you're a lawyer, don't you?

I think I am not as clueless or Causeless as you.

It is sanctioned by law. That is all.

 

[danielpalos]

You are the ones with nothing but repeal; simple rejection is not a valid refutation and is a fallacy.

First, what the **** do you mean by "nothing but repeal"?

It is not simple rejection. We are pointing out your failure to demonstrate how your reasoning lines up with the text and history surrounding the 2A.
Your responses have been:

Clueless and causeless

Only, the right, wing get, it. Let't go eat grandma.

Nothing but repeal.



What is your response?

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right wing is too clueless and too Causeless, to ever get it.

Typical communist response: "You're just not smart enough to get it."

I argue with Nazis, too; y'all are just too inferior to get it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Command economics is a requirement for a Standing Army.

So? What is you point? I am not arguing with you on that point.

The Founders were concerned about the power of a standing army. They feared it. They lived, as British subjects. I have quotes showing their fear and purpose for preserving the right of the people.

 

[danielpalos]

Command economics is a requirement for a Standing Army.

So? What is you point? I am not arguing with you on that point.

The Founders were concerned about the power of a standing army. They feared it. They lived, as British subjects. I have quotes showing their fear and purpose for preserving the right of the people.

Command economics is incompatible with free markets.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I argue with Nazis, too; y'all are just too inferior to get it.

Or, you suck at explaining it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

1. You have NEVER provided any authority or source for your statement that the Second Amendment does not protect natural rights. That is complete bullshit, and I have proved (with citations) over and over again, the exact opposite. The bill of rights was to ensure that natural rights would be protected in forming a union, and even if they were not at the time the constitution was created, the 14th Amendment made it so. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment provide a double protection, against State authority.

2. You have, again, misstated the text of the Amendment to to twist and torture it to the meaning you want, but you are wrong!!! You state:

"It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

This CONFIRMS what I have said before about how you read the Amendment. You read it like this:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have repeatedly attempted to twist the meaning for your own communist ends, but **** off. We are smarter than you and whomever is feeding you this unadulterated horse shit.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

No the second is about the right of the PEOPLE

Only in right wing fantasy. There is No Thing concerning the whole and entire concept of natural rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms

That is the subject of the second

No, it isn't. Just lousy right wing, reading comprehension?

The Intent and Purpose Clause, leads the way.

Self defense is not private justice.

Yes, it is.

Public justice is holding the perpetrator until police arrive and that person gets a trial.

No it is not. You are confusing vigilantism with self defense

natural rights for private citizens equals private justice not social justice.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

No you are the only one who doesn't get it.

And there is no such thing as "social justice"

Killing in self defense if perfectly legal and has nothing to do with justice. You think killing in self defense is illegal

Getting personal justice as you call it it is vigilantism

only in right wing fantasy. the concept of social justice exists and is taught in tertiary education.

Not when I went to college it wasn't.

"Social Justice" as it is defined today is viewed primarily as a matter of redistributing goods and resources to improve the situations of the disadvantaged.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Command economics is incompatible with free markets.

Are you just making statement and using buzzwords again?

What the **** does that even mean? Explain it to me....if you can.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Social Justice" as it is defined today is viewed primarily as a matter of redistributing goods and resources to improve the situations of the disadvantaged.

A.K.A. commie bullshit.

 

[danielpalos]

I argue with Nazis, too; y'all are just too inferior to get it.

Or, you suck at explaining it?

What part don't you understand?