Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

Daniel Trollus has been banned on several forums. On others we ignored him and he buggered off. I suggest we ignore him here. He craves attention and is a bot who does not think for itself
I got banned for winning my arguments with the clueless and the Causeless as a form of "equal work for equal pay". Don't let me catch y'all whining in the affirmative action threads.

No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?

I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.

Since DC v Heller paragraph (1) was "plagiarized" from Posse comitatus; it should lose relevance and Standing should gun lovers refuse posse duty.
 
Daniel Trollus has been banned on several forums. On others we ignored him and he buggered off. I suggest we ignore him here. He craves attention and is a bot who does not think for itself
I got banned for winning my arguments with the clueless and the Causeless as a form of "equal work for equal pay". Don't let me catch y'all whining in the affirmative action threads.

No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?

I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.

Since DC v Heller paragraph (1) was "plagiarized" from Posse comitatus; it should lose relevance and Standing should gun lovers refuse posse duty.

Sorry, but the highest court in the land has ruled consistently that the 2nd speaks of an individual right. Feel free to continue to post vague nonsense while trying to sound intelligent. But until the SCOTUS rules differently, I get to keep my guns and not sign up for any service.
 
Daniel Trollus has been banned on several forums. On others we ignored him and he buggered off. I suggest we ignore him here. He craves attention and is a bot who does not think for itself
I got banned for winning my arguments with the clueless and the Causeless as a form of "equal work for equal pay". Don't let me catch y'all whining in the affirmative action threads.

No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?

I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.

Since DC v Heller paragraph (1) was "plagiarized" from Posse comitatus; it should lose relevance and Standing should gun lovers refuse posse duty.

Sorry, but the highest court in the land has ruled consistently that the 2nd speaks of an individual right. Feel free to continue to post vague nonsense while trying to sound intelligent. But until the SCOTUS rules differently, I get to keep my guns and not sign up for any service.
Still nothing but fallacy? When are gun lovers going to get a clue and a Cause; gun control (the police power) is not gun Prohibition; rights in private property are already secured in State Constitutions--not our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.
 
Daniel Trollus has been banned on several forums. On others we ignored him and he buggered off. I suggest we ignore him here. He craves attention and is a bot who does not think for itself
I got banned for winning my arguments with the clueless and the Causeless as a form of "equal work for equal pay". Don't let me catch y'all whining in the affirmative action threads.

No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?

I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.

Since DC v Heller paragraph (1) was "plagiarized" from Posse comitatus; it should lose relevance and Standing should gun lovers refuse posse duty.

Sorry, but the highest court in the land has ruled consistently that the 2nd speaks of an individual right. Feel free to continue to post vague nonsense while trying to sound intelligent. But until the SCOTUS rules differently, I get to keep my guns and not sign up for any service.
Still nothing but fallacy? When are gun lovers going to get a clue and a Cause; gun control (the police power) is not gun Prohibition; rights in private property are already secured in State Constitutions--not our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

Fallacy? So some kid posts that it is a fallacy, and the SCOTUS rules that it is an individual right. Hmmm, I wonder which is more qualified?

And this "property rights" nonsense is ridiculous.
 
Daniel Trollus has been banned on several forums. On others we ignored him and he buggered off. I suggest we ignore him here. He craves attention and is a bot who does not think for itself
I got banned for winning my arguments with the clueless and the Causeless as a form of "equal work for equal pay". Don't let me catch y'all whining in the affirmative action threads.

No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?

I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.

Since DC v Heller paragraph (1) was "plagiarized" from Posse comitatus; it should lose relevance and Standing should gun lovers refuse posse duty.

Sorry, but the highest court in the land has ruled consistently that the 2nd speaks of an individual right. Feel free to continue to post vague nonsense while trying to sound intelligent. But until the SCOTUS rules differently, I get to keep my guns and not sign up for any service.
Still nothing but fallacy? When are gun lovers going to get a clue and a Cause; gun control (the police power) is not gun Prohibition; rights in private property are already secured in State Constitutions--not our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

Fallacy? So some kid posts that it is a fallacy, and the SCOTUS rules that it is an individual right. Hmmm, I wonder which is more qualified?

And this "property rights" nonsense is ridiculous.
Simply appealing to authority instead of reason is also a fallacy. The whole world knows gun lovers have nothing but fallacy; and, the judicature merely needs to get "called on it" in a relevant case. Some on the left know they don't have a better argument, either.

It is merely and Only the difference between someone who is well regulated, in this case with words, and gun lovers without a clue or a Cause.
 
[

Fallacy? So some kid posts that it is a fallacy, and the SCOTUS rules that it is an individual right. Hmmm, I wonder which is more qualified?

And this "property rights" nonsense is ridiculous.
Daneil Trollus is a failed experiment in artificial intelligence. His programmer needs to expand his bot's vocabulary
 
Ok, if you say so. But that is a different discussion. The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.
It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller. I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.
Nor am I. I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd. And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".
Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights. Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

All people is inclusive of Individual rights. The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.

That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.

In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
 
It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller. I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.
Nor am I. I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd. And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".
Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights. Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

All people is inclusive of Individual rights. The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.

That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.

In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
If you don't have a better answer; i am right. :p
 
Nor am I. I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd. And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".
Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights. Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

All people is inclusive of Individual rights. The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.

That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.

In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
If you don't have a better answer; i am right. :p
But I do; thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
 
Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights. Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

All people is inclusive of Individual rights. The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.

That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.

In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
If you don't have a better answer; i am right. :p
But I do; thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
This is the law, not mere opinion:

Article 1, Section 8: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Second Amendment: 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.
 
There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
If you don't have a better answer; i am right. :p
But I do; thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
This is the law, not mere opinion:

Article 1, Section 8: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Second Amendment: 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.
Correct; it is not opinion. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
 
There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.
True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
If you don't have a better answer; i am right. :p
But I do; thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
This is the law, not mere opinion:

Article 1, Section 8: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Second Amendment: 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.
Correct; it is not opinion. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law as a privilege or immunity in our Republic.
 
True. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
If you don't have a better answer; i am right. :p
But I do; thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
This is the law, not mere opinion:

Article 1, Section 8: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Second Amendment: 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.
Correct; it is not opinion. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law as a privilege or immunity in our Republic.
Correct. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
 
Again, bad times for the gun grabbers.

A gun shop was allowed by a federal court to be a Muslim Free Zone, and Black Friday broke records for gun sales.

Liberals are soiling their panties and it's a good day!
 
If you don't have a better answer; i am right. :p
But I do; thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
This is the law, not mere opinion:

Article 1, Section 8: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Second Amendment: 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.
Correct; it is not opinion. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law as a privilege or immunity in our Republic.
Correct. Thus, you are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
thanks for ceding the point and the argument by having nothing but fallacy, again, still.
 

Forum List

Back
Top