Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[Quantum Windbag]

What? With his "prefatory" and "operative" bullshit? You really shouldn't assume what others know or don't know based merely on disagreement you assumptive ignorant asswipe.

That "bullshit" happens to be the law of the land, the definitive interpretation of the clause. I would say Scalia knows more than you. I would even say that just comparing Scalia to you in any manner at all is a gross insult to a great jurist, **********.

I figured you'd jump to that fallacy quickly and you did. Judges and courts are not infallible and in case you haven't noticed.......Rulings do change. Go back to your fantasy world......

If it ever does you can claim you are right, right now you are wrong.

 

[ConHog]

More strawmen..........can you attempt to feign intellectual honesty in just one thread?

A) Do you even know what a strawman is?
B) Do you really feel you are in a position to question anyone's intellectual honesty?

Do you really and truly believe that the 2nd means that only a MILITIA is allowed to own weapons? You do realize that hunting for your own food was still pretty common in 1776 correct? Do you think the framers meant ok from now on only militias can hunt? Another thing to remember is that Jefferson , you know the author of the COTUS lived almost in fear of a tyrannical government and so wanted to provide the PEOPLE with the absolute protection from losing their weapons.

After reading a couple of your views on constitutional matters, I can tell you that you need to do some research on the subject. Or just stop lying, which ever applies.

I've never been dishonest you cocksucking *****. Why accuse others of what you are guilty of?

The strawman is people are "afraid of guns." Sure, there may be some that are but that is not why I am pointing out the 2nd does not state what many wish it would.

I'm pointing out the 2nd is focused on a well regulated militia that is necessary for the security of a free State. It does not say "The people have to be armed." It is a single sentence stating the Militia provides the security and not simply individuals.

Your "hunting" red herring is a ******* joke. The 2nd was written in a manner to allow only certain people to own guns who would belong to a militia. It does not say individuals are not allowed to own guns.

Your assessment of my Constitutional views is hilarious. After ***** slapping you ten ways from Tuesday in the BSA thread do you really think your opinion has any merit? Rotfl! Stop being such a useless ****.

Why are you so obsessed with cock sucking guys? Let me point out something to you to.

It does not say "The people have to be armed."

Who said anything about HAVING to be armed? It certainly does say you have the right to own weapons. I would even argue that doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to carry, but it DOES mean you have the right to own guns.

Oh, and just as you are doing in this thread in the BSA thread you argued that the SCOTUS was wrong. So let me explain how the COTUS works. The SCOTUS is authorized by the very piece of paper that you THINK you understand to do exactly what they have done. They are authorized to interpret laws. The fact that they continuously rule against your desires should tell you a few things about yourself

A) That you're a dumbass
B) That you don't understand the COTUS

Finally, the fact that you are pretty much incapable of arguing ANY debate without calling other people cocksuckers and such , well that proves that you have nothing.

 

[daveman]

curved is just angry period.

As for the 2nd.

CLEARLY the people refers to US citizens, in EVERY case. We the People. Remember? The framers absolutely intended for us to have the right to own guns. Now whether those rights extend into government not having any place in limiting those rights, obviously this not true, they can limit any right, with good cause; but unless that good cause is show, we have the right to "bear arms"

Indeed. And as ruled in Heller, leftists being scared of guns is not good cause.

More strawmen..........can you attempt to feign intellectual honesty in just one thread?

Oh, you mean like the kind of intellectual honesty that thinks it knows more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court?

 

[daveman]

No, daveman, you don't get to make up your own definitions, my friend.

You're in no position to lecture anyone about definitions, "statist".

 

[daveman]

Simply saying SCOTUS says I'm wrong is the fallacy of appeal to authority.

As opposed to what you're doing: "It's what I say it is, and for proof, I offer my assertion that it is what I say it is!"

 

[ConHog]

Indeed. And as ruled in Heller, leftists being scared of guns is not good cause.

More strawmen..........can you attempt to feign intellectual honesty in just one thread?

Oh, you mean like the kind of intellectual honesty that thinks it knows more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court?

No Dave, come on. Be fair, Curve is just one of those people who isn't smart enough to realize what exactly it is that the judicial branch does as far as on a federal level. When they get an interpretation they don't like they scream "That's judicial activism." No fool it's "judicial review"

 

[daveman]

More strawmen..........can you attempt to feign intellectual honesty in just one thread?

Oh, you mean like the kind of intellectual honesty that thinks it knows more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court?

No Dave, come on. Be fair, Curve is just one of those people who isn't smart enough to realize what exactly it is that the judicial branch does as far as on a federal level. When they get an interpretation they don't like they scream "That's judicial activism." No fool it's "judicial review"

I bet he screams at the TV. A lot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Simply saying SCOTUS says I'm wrong is the fallacy of appeal to authority. ...

Actually, it isn't. It would only be a fallacy if the authority we are citing is not an actual authority on the subject. If I were to quote Pat Robertson as an authority that America is a Christian nation, that would be a false appeal to authority because Pat Robertson is not an authority on the Founding Fathers and early American history. Citing SCOTUS as proof that you are wrong in insisting that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, is actually a valid argument because SCOTUS is an authority on the Constitution.

 

[Nonelitist]

More strawmen..........can you attempt to feign intellectual honesty in just one thread?

A) Do you even know what a strawman is?
B) Do you really feel you are in a position to question anyone's intellectual honesty?

Do you really and truly believe that the 2nd means that only a MILITIA is allowed to own weapons? You do realize that hunting for your own food was still pretty common in 1776 correct? Do you think the framers meant ok from now on only militias can hunt? Another thing to remember is that Jefferson , you know the author of the COTUS lived almost in fear of a tyrannical government and so wanted to provide the PEOPLE with the absolute protection from losing their weapons.

After reading a couple of your views on constitutional matters, I can tell you that you need to do some research on the subject. Or just stop lying, which ever applies.

I've never been dishonest you cocksucking *****. Why accuse others of what you are guilty of?

The strawman is people are "afraid of guns." Sure, there may be some that are but that is not why I am pointing out the 2nd does not state what many wish it would.

I'm pointing out the 2nd is focused on a well regulated militia that is necessary for the security of a free State. It does not say "The people have to be armed." It is a single sentence stating the Militia provides the security and not simply individuals.

Your "hunting" red herring is a ******* joke. The 2nd was written in a manner to allow only certain people to own guns who would belong to a militia. It does not say individuals are not allowed to own guns.

Your assessment of my Constitutional views is hilarious. After ***** slapping you ten ways from Tuesday in the BSA thread do you really think your opinion has any merit? Rotfl! Stop being such a useless ****.

I bet you are one of the first ones to try to eliminate states from having militias huh?

idiot.... partisan hack... hypocrite

 

[Jeremy]

A) Do you even know what a strawman is?
B) Do you really feel you are in a position to question anyone's intellectual honesty?

Do you really and truly believe that the 2nd means that only a MILITIA is allowed to own weapons? You do realize that hunting for your own food was still pretty common in 1776 correct? Do you think the framers meant ok from now on only militias can hunt? Another thing to remember is that Jefferson , you know the author of the COTUS lived almost in fear of a tyrannical government and so wanted to provide the PEOPLE with the absolute protection from losing their weapons.

After reading a couple of your views on constitutional matters, I can tell you that you need to do some research on the subject. Or just stop lying, which ever applies.

I've never been dishonest you cocksucking *****. Why accuse others of what you are guilty of?

The strawman is people are "afraid of guns." Sure, there may be some that are but that is not why I am pointing out the 2nd does not state what many wish it would.

I'm pointing out the 2nd is focused on a well regulated militia that is necessary for the security of a free State. It does not say "The people have to be armed." It is a single sentence stating the Militia provides the security and not simply individuals.

Your "hunting" red herring is a ******* joke. The 2nd was written in a manner to allow only certain people to own guns who would belong to a militia. It does not say individuals are not allowed to own guns.

Your assessment of my Constitutional views is hilarious. After ***** slapping you ten ways from Tuesday in the BSA thread do you really think your opinion has any merit? Rotfl! Stop being such a useless ****.

I bet you are one of the first ones to try to eliminate states from having militias huh?

idiot.... partisan hack... hypocrite

and such a potty mouth.

 

[Jeremy]

Sorry Curve but your side lost. Game over. I'd suggest moving on to your next battle. All you are doing is confirming that you are a whinny, sniveling, sore loosing, little *****.

 

[ConHog]

Sorry Curve but your side lost. Game over. I'd suggest moving on to your next battle. All you are doing is confirming that you are a whinny, sniveling, sore loosing, little *****.

You forgot cock sucking.

 

[CurveLight]

Simply saying SCOTUS says I'm wrong is the fallacy of appeal to authority. ...

Actually, it isn't. It would only be a fallacy if the authority we are citing is not an actual authority on the subject. If I were to quote Pat Robertson as an authority that America is a Christian nation, that would be a false appeal to authority because Pat Robertson is not an authority on the Founding Fathers and early American history. Citing SCOTUS as proof that you are wrong in insisting that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, is actually a valid argument because SCOTUS is an authority on the Constitution.

Okay......seems you are not aware there is more than one application. Saying the ruling is correct on the mere basis of it coming from SCOTUS is bullshit. No different than a referee making a call during a sports game. If he makes a bad call people don't simply agree the ruling was correct merely because the "Authority" on the field said it.

 

[CurveLight]

I bet you are one of the first ones to try to eliminate states from having militias huh?

idiot.... partisan hack... hypocrite

Gosh. That makes a lot of sense after I've already repeated about five times I support peoples' right to own gun. Your keen observation skill are awesome you dumb ****.

 

[CurveLight]

A) Do you even know what a strawman is?
B) Do you really feel you are in a position to question anyone's intellectual honesty?

Do you really and truly believe that the 2nd means that only a MILITIA is allowed to own weapons? You do realize that hunting for your own food was still pretty common in 1776 correct? Do you think the framers meant ok from now on only militias can hunt? Another thing to remember is that Jefferson , you know the author of the COTUS lived almost in fear of a tyrannical government and so wanted to provide the PEOPLE with the absolute protection from losing their weapons.

After reading a couple of your views on constitutional matters, I can tell you that you need to do some research on the subject. Or just stop lying, which ever applies.

I've never been dishonest you cocksucking *****. Why accuse others of what you are guilty of?

The strawman is people are "afraid of guns." Sure, there may be some that are but that is not why I am pointing out the 2nd does not state what many wish it would.

I'm pointing out the 2nd is focused on a well regulated militia that is necessary for the security of a free State. It does not say "The people have to be armed." It is a single sentence stating the Militia provides the security and not simply individuals.

Your "hunting" red herring is a ******* joke. The 2nd was written in a manner to allow only certain people to own guns who would belong to a militia. It does not say individuals are not allowed to own guns.

Your assessment of my Constitutional views is hilarious. After ***** slapping you ten ways from Tuesday in the BSA thread do you really think your opinion has any merit? Rotfl! Stop being such a useless ****.

Why are you so obsessed with cock sucking guys? Let me point out something to you to.

It does not say "The people have to be armed."

Who said anything about HAVING to be armed? It certainly does say you have the right to own weapons. I would even argue that doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to carry, but it DOES mean you have the right to own guns.

Oh, and just as you are doing in this thread in the BSA thread you argued that the SCOTUS was wrong. So let me explain how the COTUS works. The SCOTUS is authorized by the very piece of paper that you THINK you understand to do exactly what they have done. They are authorized to interpret laws. The fact that they continuously rule against your desires should tell you a few things about yourself

A) That you're a dumbass
B) That you don't understand the COTUS

Finally, the fact that you are pretty much incapable of arguing ANY debate without calling other people cocksuckers and such , well that proves that you have nothing.

All of that whining and you still avoid the fact the 2nd says the security of a free State is found in a well regulated militia. That is why you get called a sorry *****. None of you whiny ***** can point to where this militia is and have completely ignored the points already made. You got nothing so you keep whining and your little ***** tears don't wash away your ignorance so yoiur only rebuttal is to say "But....but...but..SCOTUS!!!!"

Try paying attention dumbfuck.

 

[CurveLight]

Simply saying SCOTUS says I'm wrong is the fallacy of appeal to authority.

As opposed to what you're doing: "It's what I say it is, and for proof, I offer my assertion that it is what I say it is!"

Holy shit you're stoopid. I've been explaining my position and if you whiny brats paid attention you would see that. Naw.....stick to your crying....it's what you know best.

 

[CurveLight]

Indeed. And as ruled in Heller, leftists being scared of guns is not good cause.

More strawmen..........can you attempt to feign intellectual honesty in just one thread?

Oh, you mean like the kind of intellectual honesty that thinks it knows more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court?

You just keep proving gun lovers are the dumbest mother fuckers. None of your ***** buddies even had the balls to point out you don't know what intellectual dishonesty means.

 

[Douger]

You can only hope... isn't that right you dispicable, anti-american, criminal supporting idiot?

Where have I ever posted that I oppose individual gun ownership?

You must have me confused with someone else

Noneli had his window opened, it was breezy, and his flag brushed across his face and caused him to bust a nut while hitting " quote".
Wrong quote.
Forgiveth him for he/eth a moroneth.

 

[skookerasbil]

Sadly the four libs on the court would rather see American citizens' rights trampled on.

Indeed.........we need to get Obama's ass out of there and then we need some of these lefty judges to check out. Progressives have no clue as to how passionate gun owners are...............but there is a possibility they could all find out one day Imagine that? The end of limpwristedness in America??? WIN.



Oh...........the caption with this photo is "Oooooops!!!"

ps.........epilogue for asshole who didnt know the potential of Mr 12 Guage!!!!

 

[Jeremy]

I bet you are one of the first ones to try to eliminate states from having militias huh?

idiot.... partisan hack... hypocrite

Gosh. That makes a lot of sense after I've already repeated about five times I support peoples' right to own gun. Your keen observation skill are awesome you dumb ****.

Why don't you try getting your quotes right you stupid ****. That was 'Nonelitist' not me.