Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
Make sense or shut the fuck up!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.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.You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy. The whole and entire People are the Militia.It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.Because it should be self-evident.Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
How can you torture the words to mean something other?
Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And you again ignore the 14th, which prevents states from passing unconstitutional laws. Regardless, the Illinois constitution has no bearing whatsoever on any other state.Only if you understand nothing of our Constitutional form of Government.Which means nothing in Texas, or Florida, or Wisconsin. You know, the rest of the states.Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)Just what argument are you failing to make?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.You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy. The whole and entire People are the Militia.It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.Because it should be self-evident.Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
How can you torture the words to mean something other?
Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia. So?
That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms. Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.
Right?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That is a question better directed toward you.What don't you understand?So what are you trying to argue?Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)Just what argument are you failing to make?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.You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy. The whole and entire People are the Militia.It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.Because it should be self-evident.Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
How can you torture the words to mean something other?
Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia. So?
That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms. Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.
Right?
Actually make a fucking argument so we can rebut it. So far, you have done nothing but barf up nonsense without explanation.You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.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.You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy. The whole and entire People are the Militia.It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.Because it should be self-evident.Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
How can you torture the words to mean something other?
Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Whining and saying stupid shit isn't "rebutting" anything.We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.
Unconstitutional laws.Explain how machine guns can be regulated and even banned but assault rifles can't.
Ask relevant questions, troll.Make sense or shut the fuck up!
It may take a while to dumb it down enough for the right wing.Ready? Here we go:
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Am I winning the arguement yet?
Is the power to regulate arms held by the FedGov or the States?Ask relevant questions, troll.Make sense or shut the fuck up!
I understand our Second Amendment is clear and unambiguous in any way. There is nothing left to implication due to the clarity of expression.That is a question better directed toward you.What don't you understand?So what are you trying to argue?Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)Just what argument are you failing to make?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.You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy. The whole and entire People are the Militia.It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.Because it should be self-evident.Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
How can you torture the words to mean something other?
Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia. So?
That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms. Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.
Right?
You have no valid rebuttalls only fallacy. Even promiscuoous women are less full of fallacy and I give them a free pass on those grounds.Actually make a fucking argument so we can rebut it. So far, you have done nothing but barf up nonsense without explanation.
This is a State's sovereign right, secured by our Tenth Amendment.Unconstitutional laws.Explain how machine guns can be regulated and even banned but assault rifles can't.
Is the power to regulate arms held by the FedGov or the States?You have no valid rebuttalls only fallacy. Even promiscuoous women are less full of fallacy and I give them a free pass on those grounds.Actually make a fucking argument so we can rebut it. So far, you have done nothing but barf up nonsense without explanation.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;Is the power to regulate arms held by the FedGov or the States?Ask relevant questions, troll.Make sense or shut the fuck up!
In Right-Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.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.You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms. The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.So what. Legal fallacies are just that. Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy. The whole and entire People are the Militia.It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.Because it should be self-evident.Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
How can you torture the words to mean something other?
Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(The pigeon takes another lap)