Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?

Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself; you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.

 

[LOki]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

You are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified in 10USC311.

There's no appeal to ignorance involved. You say there is, but you simply cannot demonstrate it is so. Still you invoke it like it's some magic talisman. Hence, you're a retard.

 

[LOki]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?

Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Dude, you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.

Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.

Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.

 

[LOki]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?

Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...

Strawman. I never claimed it was.

...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.

Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.

Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?

Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...

Strawman. I never claimed it was.

...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.

Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.

Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.

Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.

You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.

 

[Dan Daly]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

and AGAIN, the mention of well-regulated militias in the 2nd Amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our right to keep and bear arms. Deal with it, Nancy.

Fact is, our right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution or any other document...it is an inherent human right that you and your government toadies can only infringe IF we allow you to disarm us...which ain't gonna happen, Junior.

 

[LOki]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?

Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...

Strawman. I never claimed it was.

...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.

Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.

Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.

Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.

Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.

You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.

There is clearly no Appeal to Ignorance being made here, you insufferable cretin.

Considering that 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

and AGAIN, the mention of well-regulated militias in the 2nd Amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our right to keep and bear arms. Deal with it, Nancy.

Fact is, our right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution or any other document...it is an inherent human right that you and your government toadies can only infringe IF we allow you to disarm us...which ain't gonna happen, Junior.

Yes, it does, simply Because, not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

 

[danielpalos]

None of which has anything to do with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

If I say that "well-trained carpenters being necessary for the construction of shelters, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed" , does that mean that only well-trained carpenters can own hammers?

Of course not. People that equate membership in a militia, well-regulated (trained) or not, to the right of all people to keep and bear any means of defending themselves, their families, communities, states, countries, etc., have gotta be either the dimmest bulbs on the tree, or the most dishonest.

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...

Strawman. I never claimed it was.

...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.

Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.

Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.

Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.

Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.

You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.

There is clearly no Appeal to Ignorance being made here, you insufferable cretin.

Considering that 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.

 

[Dan Daly]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

and AGAIN, the mention of well-regulated militias in the 2nd Amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our right to keep and bear arms. Deal with it, Nancy.

Fact is, our right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution or any other document...it is an inherent human right that you and your government toadies can only infringe IF we allow you to disarm us...which ain't gonna happen, Junior.

Yes, it does, simply Because, not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

I didn't realize you were mentally challenged, so please read carefully and slowly:

The mention of a well-regulated militia in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If that still isn't clear, feel free to ask questions. If your handicap prevents you from being able to communicate effectively with words, feel free to draw pictures.

 

[Dan Daly]

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...

Strawman. I never claimed it was.

...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.

Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.

Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.

Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.

Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.

You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.

There is clearly no Appeal to Ignorance being made here, you insufferable cretin.

Considering that 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.

well-regulated means well-trained...it has nothing to do with the organizational structure.

At issue would be CONSTITUTIONAL militias vs Tom, Dick & Harry's private militias.

 

[LOki]

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...

Strawman. I never claimed it was.

...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.

Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.

Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.

Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.

Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.

You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.

There is clearly no Appeal to Ignorance being made here, you insufferable cretin.

Considering that 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.

You are wrong.

You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.

You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

So you remain wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

and AGAIN, the mention of well-regulated militias in the 2nd Amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our right to keep and bear arms. Deal with it, Nancy.

Fact is, our right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution or any other document...it is an inherent human right that you and your government toadies can only infringe IF we allow you to disarm us...which ain't gonna happen, Junior.

Yes, it does, simply Because, not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

I didn't realize you were mentally challenged, so please read carefully and slowly:

The mention of a well-regulated militia in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If that still isn't clear, feel free to ask questions. If your handicap prevents you from being able to communicate effectively with words, feel free to draw pictures.

Yes, it does; Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller specifically applies to gun lovers without a clue or a Cause, but not well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...

Strawman. I never claimed it was.

...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.

Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.

Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.

Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.

Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.

You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.

There is clearly no Appeal to Ignorance being made here, you insufferable cretin.

Considering that 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.

well-regulated means well-trained...it has nothing to do with the organizational structure.

At issue would be CONSTITUTIONAL militias vs Tom, Dick & Harry's private militias.

nope; in our US case, it means whatever our federal Congress prescribes.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;...

Strawman. I never claimed it was.

...you are appealing to ignorance of the law as codified at 10USC311.

Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.

Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.

Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.

Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.

You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.

There is clearly no Appeal to Ignorance being made here, you insufferable cretin.

Considering that 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.

You are wrong.

You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.

You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.

 

[LOki]

Strawman. I never claimed it was.

Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.

Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.

Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.

Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.

You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.

There is clearly no Appeal to Ignorance being made here, you insufferable cretin.

Considering that 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.

You are wrong.

You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.

You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.

Yes you can. And you obviously are.

You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.

You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.

It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

So you remain wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[Dan Daly]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

and AGAIN, the mention of well-regulated militias in the 2nd Amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our right to keep and bear arms. Deal with it, Nancy.

Fact is, our right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution or any other document...it is an inherent human right that you and your government toadies can only infringe IF we allow you to disarm us...which ain't gonna happen, Junior.

Yes, it does, simply Because, not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

I didn't realize you were mentally challenged, so please read carefully and slowly:

The mention of a well-regulated militia in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If that still isn't clear, feel free to ask questions. If your handicap prevents you from being able to communicate effectively with words, feel free to draw pictures.

Yes, it does; Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller specifically applies to gun lovers without a clue or a Cause, but not well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.

You just keep looking dumber with every post. You must work for the Obama bunch.

That you don't understand the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, or the slightly more complicated language of Heller is depressing. I assume you are a product of public education?

 

[Dan Daly]

Strawman. I never claimed it was.

Despite every opportunity you've had demonstrate this "appeal to ignorance", you simply haven't done so.

Your retarded point is meaningless. You're just wrong.

Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.

Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.

You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.

There is clearly no Appeal to Ignorance being made here, you insufferable cretin.

Considering that 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.

well-regulated means well-trained...it has nothing to do with the organizational structure.

At issue would be CONSTITUTIONAL militias vs Tom, Dick & Harry's private militias.

nope; in our US case, it means whatever our federal Congress prescribes.

Only if they amend the Constitution...but I am not surprised that you are one of the Idiocrats who think Congress can simply pass a law to change the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Not a straw man at all; it is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from realizing it.

Nonsense. Nonsense fabricated from nothing. Total fiction. Entirely baseless in fact--like your retarded point.

You are simply appealing to ignorance of any Thing not in our Second Article of Amendment to construe your argument.

There is clearly no Appeal to Ignorance being made here, you insufferable cretin.

Considering that 10 USC 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes) makes no mention at all of a "well regulated milita", your reference to it remains entirely meaningless--like your half-witted point.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

It is only your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to myself) that prevents you from recognizing that well regulated militias must be organized militias.

You are wrong.

You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.

You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.

You are wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.

Yes you can. And you obviously are.

You are wrong about what "well regulated militia" means. It means, a militia maintained in proper function.

You are wrong about what "organized militia" means. It means, the militia organized by the Federal Government.

It is merely your cognitive dissonance (exogenous to the objective nature of reality) that prevents you from realizing it.

Yet, without ever looking at 10 USC 311, even the least aware turnip could grasp (unlike yourself) the fact of reality that the United States Code can IN NO MANNER modify or inform the Constitution of the United States.

To put it plainly for the profoundly retarded--such as yourself--the incontestable fact of reality is that the ENTIRE United States Code--including 10 USC 311 (you mouth-breathing moron) is SUBJECT to the US Constitution...including the 2nd Amendment.

It literally DOES NOT, and is powerless to, put any constraint or limitation upon the unambiguous assertion that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could be ENTIRELY ignorant of 10 USC 311, and you would be obviously wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

Regardless, a well regulated Militia is dependent upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; hence, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--not by any limitation to militia membership.

You can reference "a well regulated militia" ad-nauseam, but your reference will remain entirely irrelevant to the unambiguous, and explicitly asserted declaration that it is the people's right, not any militia's, but each individual US sovereign's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

So you remain wrong. AGAIN. STILL.

I can't be wrong that well regulated militias must be organized.

All you have done is appeal to ignorance; a well regulated militia must be an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; 10USC311 is the example in question. Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State in our Second Amendment; not, the entirety of the Militia of the United States.

and AGAIN, the mention of well-regulated militias in the 2nd Amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with our right to keep and bear arms. Deal with it, Nancy.

Fact is, our right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution or any other document...it is an inherent human right that you and your government toadies can only infringe IF we allow you to disarm us...which ain't gonna happen, Junior.

Yes, it does, simply Because, not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

I didn't realize you were mentally challenged, so please read carefully and slowly:

The mention of a well-regulated militia in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If that still isn't clear, feel free to ask questions. If your handicap prevents you from being able to communicate effectively with words, feel free to draw pictures.

Yes, it does; Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller specifically applies to gun lovers without a clue or a Cause, but not well regulated militias of Individuals of the People.

You just keep looking dumber with every post. You must work for the Obama bunch.

That you don't understand the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, or the slightly more complicated language of Heller is depressing. I assume you are a product of public education?

Yes, the plain language is limited by the context of the Intent and Purpose.