Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[PredFan]

When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?

Wtf are you babbling about? Do YOU even know?

I know you don't have a clue or a Cause.

Yeah well when the author doesn't even know wtf he's saying, how the hell is the reader supposed to?

Only those who don't have a clue or a Cause, say that. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.

Say what? Just wtf are you babbling about?

 

[danielpalos]

Good grief, speaka da ingles.

It's an old self aggrandizing ploy, make a semi-cryptic statement that could be taken at least two ways and see who takes the bait, and which way they take it then indulge in smug self satisfaction at making light of those who don't take it the way the author intends. Grade school antics.

It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.

Thank you for confirming my assessment.

Thank you for having nothing but fallacy to work with, and ceding the point and the argument, as a result of your lack of being able to come up with a valid argument for a valid rebuttal.

Yeah, you're a politician......... one step below a lawyer, who is lower than whale shit. I'm not trying to rebut anything you've posted....... yet
I'll make it easy for ya Sparky, define militia in the historical context of the founding fathers. If you refuse, dodge, obfuscate or continue to play the broken record then I'll dismiss you for a clueless hack or an infantile troll. No problem.

Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

 

[danielpalos]

When are gun lovers going to get serious about a serious relationship with their Republic?

Wtf are you babbling about? Do YOU even know?

I know you don't have a clue or a Cause.

Yeah well when the author doesn't even know wtf he's saying, how the hell is the reader supposed to?

Only those who don't have a clue or a Cause, say that. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.

Say what? Just wtf are you babbling about?

Your lack of a clue or a Cause sufficient for you to acquire and possess, any form of standing.

 

[Ringel05]

It's an old self aggrandizing ploy, make a semi-cryptic statement that could be taken at least two ways and see who takes the bait, and which way they take it then indulge in smug self satisfaction at making light of those who don't take it the way the author intends. Grade school antics.

It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.

Thank you for confirming my assessment.

Thank you for having nothing but fallacy to work with, and ceding the point and the argument, as a result of your lack of being able to come up with a valid argument for a valid rebuttal.

Yeah, you're a politician......... one step below a lawyer, who is lower than whale shit. I'm not trying to rebut anything you've posted....... yet
I'll make it easy for ya Sparky, define militia in the historical context of the founding fathers. If you refuse, dodge, obfuscate or continue to play the broken record then I'll dismiss you for a clueless hack or an infantile troll. No problem.

Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.

 

[danielpalos]

It is as clear as the sky during a drought of any appeals to ignorance; only those of your point of view don't seem to have a clue or a Cause.

Thank you for confirming my assessment.

Thank you for having nothing but fallacy to work with, and ceding the point and the argument, as a result of your lack of being able to come up with a valid argument for a valid rebuttal.

Yeah, you're a politician......... one step below a lawyer, who is lower than whale shit. I'm not trying to rebut anything you've posted....... yet
I'll make it easy for ya Sparky, define militia in the historical context of the founding fathers. If you refuse, dodge, obfuscate or continue to play the broken record then I'll dismiss you for a clueless hack or an infantile troll. No problem.

Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.

dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

 

[Ringel05]

Thank you for confirming my assessment.

Thank you for having nothing but fallacy to work with, and ceding the point and the argument, as a result of your lack of being able to come up with a valid argument for a valid rebuttal.

Yeah, you're a politician......... one step below a lawyer, who is lower than whale shit. I'm not trying to rebut anything you've posted....... yet
I'll make it easy for ya Sparky, define militia in the historical context of the founding fathers. If you refuse, dodge, obfuscate or continue to play the broken record then I'll dismiss you for a clueless hack or an infantile troll. No problem.

Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.

dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!! Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation. Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?

 

[PredFan]

Wtf are you babbling about? Do YOU even know?

I know you don't have a clue or a Cause.

Yeah well when the author doesn't even know wtf he's saying, how the hell is the reader supposed to?

Only those who don't have a clue or a Cause, say that. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; that includes the Intent and Purpose.

Say what? Just wtf are you babbling about?

Your lack of a clue or a Cause sufficient for you to acquire and possess, any form of standing.

Jesus you are fucking stupid. Wtf does that have to do with my original statement idiot?

 

[PredFan]

Poor poor liberal gun grabbers. They have been getting their asses beat so hard and so often by the NRA and freedom loving people that it has caused their minds to unhinge even more than usual.

Funny shit that!

 

[danielpalos]

Thank you for having nothing but fallacy to work with, and ceding the point and the argument, as a result of your lack of being able to come up with a valid argument for a valid rebuttal.

Yeah, you're a politician......... one step below a lawyer, who is lower than whale shit. I'm not trying to rebut anything you've posted....... yet
I'll make it easy for ya Sparky, define militia in the historical context of the founding fathers. If you refuse, dodge, obfuscate or continue to play the broken record then I'll dismiss you for a clueless hack or an infantile troll. No problem.

Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.

dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!! Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation. Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?

Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,

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 the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.

10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.

Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.

Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.

 

[Ringel05]

Yeah, you're a politician......... one step below a lawyer, who is lower than whale shit. I'm not trying to rebut anything you've posted....... yet
I'll make it easy for ya Sparky, define militia in the historical context of the founding fathers. If you refuse, dodge, obfuscate or continue to play the broken record then I'll dismiss you for a clueless hack or an infantile troll. No problem.

Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.

dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!! Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation. Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?

Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,

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 the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.

10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.

Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.

Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.

And based on the writings of the founding fathers, the laws in place in the colonies which remained in force when each colony became a state AND the historical context (their concept of not only militia but specifically HOW they wrote it) which differs from your MODERN interpretation, you'd be wrong.
Beside SCOTUS disagrees with you........ go figure.
My suggestion is do some historical research, both in documentation and the cultural aspect (what and how they thought as well as the meanings of words in there era which have "evolved" today) and if you still believe what you do now then it's by choice, bereft of any basis in fact, remember Original Intent is always the key.

 

[Ringel05]

Also your concept of militia is modern (to include modern armories), not at all what the founding fathers called a militia or what armories were used for in the 1700s and 1800s.

 

[PredFan]

Ok, let's get back to the point of this thread; the liberal gun grabbers getting bitch-slapped by the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, and the American People.

In this latest slapping, a law against state to state transfer of weapons was shot down:

BREAKING Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban - The Truth About Guns

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, you really do need a clue and a Cause. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.

dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!! Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation. Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?

Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,

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 the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.

10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.

Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.

Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.

And based on the writings of the founding fathers, the laws in place in the colonies which remained in force when each colony became a state AND the historical context (their concept of not only militia but specifically HOW they wrote it) which differs from your MODERN interpretation, you'd be wrong.
Beside SCOTUS disagrees with you........ go figure.
My suggestion is do some historical research, both in documentation and the cultural aspect (what and how they thought as well as the meanings of words in there era which have "evolved" today) and if you still believe what you do now then it's by choice, bereft of any basis in fact, remember Original Intent is always the key.

Dude, There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State. 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States. Any Thing else is a simple, Appeal to Ignorance.

 

[danielpalos]

Also your concept of militia is modern (to include modern armories), not at all what the founding fathers called a militia or what armories were used for in the 1700s and 1800s.

Dude, there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law. 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

Ok, let's get back to the point of this thread; the liberal gun grabbers getting bitch-slapped by the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, and the American People.

In this latest slapping, a law against state to state transfer of weapons was shot down:

BREAKING Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban - The Truth About Guns

So what; just the right (hand) slapping itself (which can be quite a feat in itself), through the cognitive dissonance of Appealing to Ignorance of our Commerce Clause.

 

[PredFan]

Ok, let's get back to the point of this thread; the liberal gun grabbers getting bitch-slapped by the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, and the American People.

In this latest slapping, a law against state to state transfer of weapons was shot down:

BREAKING Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban - The Truth About Guns

So what; just the right (hand) slapping itself (which can be quite a feat in itself), through the cognitive dissonance of Appealing to Ignorance of our Commerce Clause.

Meh, it's a win for us and a loss for the statists. That's the point.

 

[Ringel05]

Answered my question the way I thought you would, have a nice life troll.

dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!! Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation. Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?

Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,

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 the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.

10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.

Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.

Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.

And based on the writings of the founding fathers, the laws in place in the colonies which remained in force when each colony became a state AND the historical context (their concept of not only militia but specifically HOW they wrote it) which differs from your MODERN interpretation, you'd be wrong.
Beside SCOTUS disagrees with you........ go figure.
My suggestion is do some historical research, both in documentation and the cultural aspect (what and how they thought as well as the meanings of words in there era which have "evolved" today) and if you still believe what you do now then it's by choice, bereft of any basis in fact, remember Original Intent is always the key.

Dude, There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State. 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States. Any Thing else is a simple, Appeal to Ignorance.

Ah yes, a zealot. Bet you hope that if you keep repeating your lie often enough people will believe it.

I guess Original Intent means nothing to you tovarich.

 

[danielpalos]

dude, even Ogres have better arguments than Trolls, like yourself. There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws--you can find them at 10USC311.

Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!! Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation. Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?

Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,

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 the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.

10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.

Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.

Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.

And based on the writings of the founding fathers, the laws in place in the colonies which remained in force when each colony became a state AND the historical context (their concept of not only militia but specifically HOW they wrote it) which differs from your MODERN interpretation, you'd be wrong.
Beside SCOTUS disagrees with you........ go figure.
My suggestion is do some historical research, both in documentation and the cultural aspect (what and how they thought as well as the meanings of words in there era which have "evolved" today) and if you still believe what you do now then it's by choice, bereft of any basis in fact, remember Original Intent is always the key.

Dude, There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State. 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States. Any Thing else is a simple, Appeal to Ignorance.

Ah yes, a zealot. Bet you hope that if you keep repeating your lie often enough people will believe it.

I guess Original Intent means nothing to you tovarich.

dude, what part of the original Intent and Purpose do you suppose you have to appeal to ignorance of, to advance such an unsound line of reasoning?

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.

 

[Ringel05]

Ok, let's get back to the point of this thread; the liberal gun grabbers getting bitch-slapped by the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, and the American People.

In this latest slapping, a law against state to state transfer of weapons was shot down:

BREAKING Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban - The Truth About Guns

So what; just the right (hand) slapping itself (which can be quite a feat in itself), through the cognitive dissonance of Appealing to Ignorance of our Commerce Clause.

Apparently you only selectively read it. While the court say the government had a compelling reason within the realm of citizen safety it

Finally you partially answered the question, amazing!! Now for the for the rest of it, your interpretation. Is your view based on the modern concept that only includes what you have posted or the Original Intent of the founding fathers based on their concept of militia AND their writings clearly defining what they meant when they included the militia clause AND the shall not be infringed determination?

Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,

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 the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.

10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.

Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.

Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.

And based on the writings of the founding fathers, the laws in place in the colonies which remained in force when each colony became a state AND the historical context (their concept of not only militia but specifically HOW they wrote it) which differs from your MODERN interpretation, you'd be wrong.
Beside SCOTUS disagrees with you........ go figure.
My suggestion is do some historical research, both in documentation and the cultural aspect (what and how they thought as well as the meanings of words in there era which have "evolved" today) and if you still believe what you do now then it's by choice, bereft of any basis in fact, remember Original Intent is always the key.

Dude, There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State. 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States. Any Thing else is a simple, Appeal to Ignorance.

Ah yes, a zealot. Bet you hope that if you keep repeating your lie often enough people will believe it.

I guess Original Intent means nothing to you tovarich.

dude, what part of the original Intent and Purpose do you suppose you have to appeal to ignorance of, to advance such an unsound line of reasoning?

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.

I already told you, you chose to ignore or reject it in favor of your own MODERN world view. I can't help it if you don't or won't get it and opt to continue your line of rationality.

 

[danielpalos]

Ok, let's get back to the point of this thread; the liberal gun grabbers getting bitch-slapped by the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, and the American People.

In this latest slapping, a law against state to state transfer of weapons was shot down:

BREAKING Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban - The Truth About Guns

So what; just the right (hand) slapping itself (which can be quite a feat in itself), through the cognitive dissonance of Appealing to Ignorance of our Commerce Clause.

Apparently you only selectively read it. While the court say the government had a compelling reason within the realm of citizen safety it

Ok. since I am on the liberal left and a patriot to the federal Cause; here it is in a nutshell,

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 the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State.

10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States.

Not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated enough to be organized.

Only well regulated militias of the United States are necessary to the security of the several United States, should their be Any need to quibble, regardless of any (Southern) Cause.

And based on the writings of the founding fathers, the laws in place in the colonies which remained in force when each colony became a state AND the historical context (their concept of not only militia but specifically HOW they wrote it) which differs from your MODERN interpretation, you'd be wrong.
Beside SCOTUS disagrees with you........ go figure.
My suggestion is do some historical research, both in documentation and the cultural aspect (what and how they thought as well as the meanings of words in there era which have "evolved" today) and if you still believe what you do now then it's by choice, bereft of any basis in fact, remember Original Intent is always the key.

Dude, There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, much less a supreme law of the land which declares what is necessary (and proper) to the security of a free State. 10USC311 defines the Militia of the United States. Any Thing else is a simple, Appeal to Ignorance.

Ah yes, a zealot. Bet you hope that if you keep repeating your lie often enough people will believe it.

I guess Original Intent means nothing to you tovarich.

dude, what part of the original Intent and Purpose do you suppose you have to appeal to ignorance of, to advance such an unsound line of reasoning?

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.

I already told you, you chose to ignore or reject it in favor of your own MODERN world view. I can't help it if you don't or won't get it and opt to continue your line of rationality.

Nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy for your Cause; i got it.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of Any law, much less our supreme law of the land.