Please answer these questions - without insult, innuendo, and emotion.

[progressive hunter]

those things are only a problem for democrats that like to cheat,,,

Here I am proposing a solution to that cheating and you are attempting to argue against it.

how about we start with whats legal first and go from there,,

we need ID's for many many things so to have one to vote shouldnt be a problem,,

 

[colfax_m]

how about we start with whats legal first and go from there,,

we need ID's for many many things so to have one to vote shouldnt be a problem,,

Not everyone needs an ID.

But if you’re going to require them, might as well do it right.

 

[progressive hunter]

how about we start with whats legal first and go from there,,

we need ID's for many many things so to have one to vote shouldnt be a problem,,

Not everyone needs an ID.

But if you’re going to require them, might as well do it right.

everyone that wants to participate in society needs one,,,

and since state ID's are connected to your SS# thats a fed ID,,

problem solved,,,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

 

[colfax_m]

how about we start with whats legal first and go from there,,

we need ID's for many many things so to have one to vote shouldnt be a problem,,

Not everyone needs an ID.

But if you’re going to require them, might as well do it right.

everyone that wants to participate in society needs one,,,

and since state ID's are connected to your SS# thats a fed ID,,

problem solved,,,

I can participate in society without one.

Can social society cards be used to vote in states that require ID? I’m 99% sure they cannot since they are not photo ID.

If you’re going to do something, do it right. I hate half assing It.

 

[Pogo]

NOW, answer this:

Trump got 73 million votes, the most a presidential candidate has ever received in an election EXCEPT for Biden, who got 5 million more votes, an 27 house seats were up for grabs and were projected to be Dem wins, and they lost 27 out of 27, yet Biden got 5 million more votes than Trump's record-setting vote tally. Is it unreasonable for people like me to find that suspicious? I am not asking you to agree that the was voter fraud. I am just asking whether it is reasonable to find that to be a tad unbelievable and irregular?

Yeah, it is. Clearly and obviously what you laid out above is a repudiation of one person independent of other contests that happened to be at the same time. It ain't rocket surgery.

Matter of fact Rump's numbers are exactly what we'd expect them to be -- a mirror image of what his approval ratings have shown with amazing consistency. In both 2016 and 2020. What would be "suspicious" would be if they did not.

Next in line please.

 

[progressive hunter]

how about we start with whats legal first and go from there,,

we need ID's for many many things so to have one to vote shouldnt be a problem,,

Not everyone needs an ID.

But if you’re going to require them, might as well do it right.

everyone that wants to participate in society needs one,,,

and since state ID's are connected to your SS# thats a fed ID,,

problem solved,,,

I can participate in society without one.

Can social society cards be used to vote in states that require ID? I’m 99% sure they cannot since they are not photo ID.

If you’re going to do something, do it right. I hate half assing It.

so you can drive a car and cash paychecks without an ID??? I doubt that,, and those are just a few of the many things that require an ID,,

SS# is connected to state ID so no need to carry the SS card,,

your spins are getting more pathetic by the minute,,,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yeah, it is. Clearly and obviously what you laid out above is a repudiation of one person independent of other contests that happened to be at the same time. It ain't rocket surgery.

That is a bullshit explanation, not supported by anything but conjecture and your own bubble bias.

But, the bullshit continues to be revealed, the longer this shit goes on:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...inds-9626-vote-error-in-countys-hand-recount/"One batch was labeled 10,707 for Biden and 13 for Trump – an improbable margin even by DeKalb standards,”

 

[Pogo]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, it is. Clearly and obviously what you laid out above is a repudiation of one person independent of other contests that happened to be at the same time. It ain't rocket surgery.

That is a bullshit explanation, not supported by anything but conjecture and your own bubble bias.

It's taken directly from what you just posted. It's the Occam's Razor answer from Captain Obvious.

Since you like analogies, try this one.

All the teams in the NFC East win their games, except for the Dullass Cowgirls, who lose bigly.
Suspicious?

Don't waste my time.

 

[Pogo]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

If you disagree, entertain the class explaining what that function is.

 

[progressive hunter]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

 

[kaz]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

Sssssaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwiiiiiiiiiiiissssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The point is read it. Well regulated militia is an explanation of the right. The right is to keep and bear arms. Sadly they didn't anticipate anyone as poorly educated as you would be reading it.

That government could decide who can be armed is just flat out stupid. Which is where you come in ...

Government schools, they failed you, Hillbilly

 

[Pogo]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the Vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to. Because (again) it's a declaration, not a basis of argument.

 

[progressive hunter]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to.

there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre not the only mother fucker in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yeah, it is. Clearly and obviously what you laid out above is a repudiation of one person independent of other contests that happened to be at the same time. It ain't rocket surgery.

That is a bullshit explanation, not supported by anything but conjecture and your own bubble bias.

It's taken directly from what you just posted. It's the Occam's Razor answer from Captain Obvious.

Since you like analogies, try this one.

All the teams in the NFC East win their games, except for the Dullass Cowgirls, who lose bigly.
Suspicious?

Don't waste my time.

That "analogy" couldn't be any less congruent.

The probability of a team losing in a football game is not what we're comparing.

A better analogy would be if the 8-1 Chiefs get blown out by the 0-9 Jets 250 to 3 (a virtually impossible feat in the NFL), the Chiefs come away bitch about getting defrauded left and right, but none of the public is allowed to watch the game. That scenario would leave some serious questions, would it not?

I think we should call up every goddamn one of those 10,000 voters and find out who they voted for, just as a test case.

 

[kaz]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the Vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to. Because (again) it's a declaration, not a basis of argument.

It's irrelevant if they had to or not. If you could read at a higher level than hillbilly, you would realize it says:

Because A, B.

A is not the right, B is the right. You just have to read. Maybe you can start watching Reading Rainbow, I hear LeVar is great

 

[progressive hunter]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the Vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to. Because (again) it's a declaration, not a basis of argument.

It's irrelevant if they had to or not. If you could read at a higher level than hillbilly, you would realize it says:

Because A, B.

A is not the right, B is the right. You just have to read. Maybe you can start watching Reading Rainbow, I hear LeVar is great

UH excuse me but hillbillies can read better than he can,,,

 

[Pogo]

Imagine the government asking you for ID before you exercise your right to purchase a firearm.

Wow.

I guess that’s where the well regulated militia part comes in, isn’t it?

that has nothing to do with bearing arms other than explaining why,,,

Yep.

" 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. "

Exactly as you said, it's an explanation of the right. Colfax can't read. Government school failure.

The right is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not sure what's unclear about that

This lesson in grammar never seems to sink in:

Cute analogy. Makes me hungry even though I've had breakfast.

What it totally misses is this: the 2A is an Amendment in the Constitution. As part of the Constitution it has zero need to explain itself. A constitution is a direct declaration of "how we're going to do things". It is not an argument in court to persuade some entity. Therefore there is no reason it should have to vindicate itself with a basis of argument. And the number of other Amendments that follow this pattern is, predictably, Zero.

And that leaves the existing 2A as a lexicographical train wreck. One that was obviously drafted by committee and not finished.

Breakfast, on the other hand, is completely up to the individual. I've heard there are even freaks who don't do it at all.

/WAY WAY offtopic

So what you're saying is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the right of the people shall not be infringed?

I agree.

So what I'm saying is there's an entire phrase in there, right at the beginning, that has no function.

its function is to tell morons that would infringe on that right why its there,,,

Once AGAIN for the slow readers, there is no reason to explain why it's there. And I already pointed this out.
ZERO Amendments other than this one "explain why they're there". Because they don't have to.

If that were necessary we'd be starting with "A well balanced "Discourse being necessary to the vitality of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.... etc"

But they don't say that, do they.

Nor do they need to.

there might be no reason for you,, guess what???

youre not the only mother fucker in the world, and as we see with other morons they need an explanation of why,,,

Here's a yahoo who wants to take a Constitutional Amendment and make it personal

STILL waiting for anyone to come up with an explanation. Still nothing. And when I say "waiting" it's poetic licence. You can't "wait" for something you already know doesn't exist.