Muhammed
Diamond Member
Obviously it isn't very simple to extremely unintelligent people, such as yourself.
Reagan Was Against Open Carry
- Thread starter Synthaholic
- Start date
Obviously it isn't very simple to extremely unintelligent people, such as yourself.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 76,165
- 73,622
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #82
I've stumped you. I understand.
Obviously it isn't very simple to extremely unintelligent people, such as yourself.
Muhammed
Diamond Member
Liar.I've stumped you. I understand.
Obviously it isn't very simple to extremely unintelligent people, such as yourself.
You are stumped.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 76,165
- 73,622
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #84
Dude, give it up. You run away from the simplest questions while declaring victory.Liar.I've stumped you. I understand.
Obviously it isn't very simple to extremely unintelligent people, such as yourself.
You are stumped.
Pathetic.
No, pathetic is you trying to use the same argument you got your ass kicked on about ten times previously.Dude, give it up. You run away from the simplest questions while declaring victory.Liar.I've stumped you. I understand.
Obviously it isn't very simple to extremely unintelligent people, such as yourself.
You are stumped.
Pathetic.
There is no requirement to belong to any formal militia in the 2A. The clause announces a general purpose but does not limit the right in any way.
You are stupid and ugly and smell funny.
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
I've stumped you. I understand.
Obviously it isn't very simple to extremely unintelligent people, such as yourself.
I have stumped. I understand
It is irrelevant that Reagan was a "conservative", ie, a right wing fascist
Even though no authority has ever been granted to fedgov to regulate firearms the following statutes are in the books
The Gun Control Act of 1968
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act)
The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA), as amended,
National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, as amended 26 USC 53
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Conservatives legislators and "justices" have had since, at least 1934, the opportunity to INVALIDATE those laws. They have failed or refused to do so.
.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 76,165
- 73,622
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #87
It hasn't been answered once, never mind ten times.No, pathetic is you trying to use the same argument you got your ass kicked on about ten times previously.Dude, give it up. You run away from the simplest questions while declaring victory.Liar.I've stumped you. I understand.
Obviously it isn't very simple to extremely unintelligent people, such as yourself.
You are stumped.
Pathetic.
There is no requirement to belong to any formal militia in the 2A. The clause announces a general purpose but does not limit the right in any way.
You are stupid and ugly and smell funny.
I didn't bother asking you the question because you're incapable of answering it.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 76,165
- 73,622
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #88
You keep regurgitating the same responses instead of answering my simple question.I've stumped you. I understand.
Obviously it isn't very simple to extremely unintelligent people, such as yourself.
I have stumped. I understand
It is irrelevant that Reagan was a "conservative", ie, a right wing fascist
Even though no authority has ever been granted to fedgov to regulate firearms the following statutes are in the books
The Gun Control Act of 1968
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act)
The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA), as amended,
National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, as amended 26 USC 53
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Conservatives legislators and "justices" have had since, at least 1934, the opportunity to INVALIDATE those laws. They have failed or refused to do so.
.
It's a troll question based on misinformation and ignorance. WHich is all you are capable of.It hasn't been answered once, never mind ten times.No, pathetic is you trying to use the same argument you got your ass kicked on about ten times previously.Dude, give it up. You run away from the simplest questions while declaring victory.Liar.I've stumped you. I understand.
Obviously it isn't very simple to extremely unintelligent people, such as yourself.
You are stumped.
Pathetic.
There is no requirement to belong to any formal militia in the 2A. The clause announces a general purpose but does not limit the right in any way.
You are stupid and ugly and smell funny.
I didn't bother asking you the question because you're incapable of answering it.
Remodeling Maidiac
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #90
Someone tell the op Reagan is dead please.
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
You keep regurgitating the same responses instead of answering my simple question.I've stumped you. I understand.
Obviously it isn't very simple to extremely unintelligent people, such as yourself.
I have stumped. I understand
It is irrelevant that Reagan was a "conservative", ie, a right wing fascist
Even though no authority has ever been granted to fedgov to regulate firearms the following statutes are in the books
The Gun Control Act of 1968
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act)
The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA), as amended,
National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, as amended 26 USC 53
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Conservatives legislators and "justices" have had since, at least 1934, the opportunity to INVALIDATE those laws. They have failed or refused to do so.
.
Stop stonewalling and answer the fucking questions.
It is irrelevant that Reagan was a "conservative", ie, a right wing fascist
Even though no authority has ever been granted to fedgov to regulate firearms the following statutes are in the books
The Gun Control Act of 1968
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act)
The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA), as amended,
National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, as amended 26 USC 53
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Conservatives legislators and "justices" have had since, at least 1934, the opportunity to INVALIDATE those laws. They have failed or refused to do so.
Muhammed
Diamond Member
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Muhammed
Diamond Member
You keep regurgitating the same responses instead of answering my simple question.I've stumped you. I understand.
Obviously it isn't very simple to extremely unintelligent people, such as yourself.
I have stumped. I understand
It is irrelevant that Reagan was a "conservative", ie, a right wing fascist
Even though no authority has ever been granted to fedgov to regulate firearms the following statutes are in the books
The Gun Control Act of 1968
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act)
The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA), as amended,
National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, as amended 26 USC 53
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Conservatives legislators and "justices" have had since, at least 1934, the opportunity to INVALIDATE those laws. They have failed or refused to do so.
.
Get a library card.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 76,165
- 73,622
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #95
What's trolling about asking:
Why didn't they just write:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
?????????????????????????????
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 76,165
- 73,622
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #96
Please point to where you've said the same thing to PoliticalChic when she starts long copy/paste hit pieces on FDR.
Liberals aren't keeping Reagan alive and trying to make him relevant. Conservatives bring him up constantly. I heard Rafael Cruz just today extolling Reagan.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 76,165
- 73,622
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #97
Why? You won't answer my question:
Why didn't they just write:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 76,165
- 73,622
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #98
Why isn't that sentence the extent of the 2nd amendment?
Nothing is trolling about asking that.
But that's been answered a dozen times. Are you stupid?
FA_Q2
Gold Member
Irrelevant. You cannot answer why the didn't to the extent that you are able to justify chaining the plain meaning of the rest of the amendment. Postulate what you will about the first section, the plain words that follow are crystal clear.
In order to ignore them you are the one that must claim supernatural information on why the prefatory clause was written.
Similar threads
