“What Percentage Of Murders Are Committed With An AR-15?”

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

dude; you have nothing but a fallacy of false Cause, by confusing natural rights with express, civil rights.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

What?

Can ANYONE explain what this tool is talking about?

Where am I trying to establish a false causal connection?

Don't just drop that bomb and run away. Explain it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well regulated militia do not have that problem.

Which is what? What is a well-regulated militia? Give us your position clearly.

 

[danielpalos]

dude; you have nothing but a fallacy of false Cause, by confusing natural rights with express, civil rights.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

What?

Can ANYONE explain what this tool is talking about?

Where am I trying to establish a false causal connection?

Don't just drop that bomb and run away. Explain it.

there are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. every dictionary proves my point.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia do not have that problem.

Which is what? What is a well-regulated militia? Give us your position clearly.

Literally, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary and may be Infringed, for the security needs of a free State.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Literally, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary and may be Infringed, for the security needs of a free State.

So, the National Guard?

Let's read it that way, then.

"A National Guard being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That still does not get you there. Congress still does not have the right to disarm the people.

States do.

You are arguing that State Constitutions protect natural rights, but in the same breathe arguing that the Federal Government can take them away, when the plain language of the 2nd says the rights shall not be infringed?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Literally, well regulated militia of the United States

And, it LITERALLY says, "being necessary for the security of a free STATE" not the United States.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

there are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. every dictionary proves my point.

I am NOT arguing that the 2nd Amendment grants any rights.

I am arguing that it limits the power of Congress. That's all.

 

[danielpalos]

Literally, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary and may be Infringed, for the security needs of a free State.

So, the National Guard?

Let's read it that way, then.

"A National Guard being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That still does not get you there. Congress still does not have the right to disarm the people.

States do.

You are arguing that State Constitutions protect natural rights, but in the same breathe arguing that the Federal Government can take them away, when the plain language of the 2nd says the rights shall not be infringed?

Are the national guard, not Persons of the People? Well regulated persons of the People are declared necessary, that only happens with militia service, in our Republic.

 

[danielpalos]

Literally, well regulated militia of the United States

And, it LITERALLY says, "being necessary for the security of a free STATE" not the United States.

A States' sovereign right, expressly declared.

 

[danielpalos]

there are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. every dictionary proves my point.

I am NOT arguing that the 2nd Amendment grants any rights.

I am arguing that it limits the power of Congress. That's all.

I agree with you; what is your position on the complaints of the lgbt community?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I agree with you; what is your position on the complaints of the lgbt community?

You mean same-sex marriage?

Marriage is a contract. Nothing more.

Consenting people with legal capacity (old enough to enter a contract and mentally sound) of any sex can enter into a contract.

Government's only purpose regarding contracts is to interpret and enforce their terms as binding obligations. Nothing more. In other words, people do not need to ask government for permission to enter a marriage contract with each other.

Furthermore, see the Contract Clause, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Seems pretty clear, but no. We had to have years of debate and a SCOTUS decision based on equal protection.

We didn't need all that.

Everyone lost sight of the legal meaning of marriage. Contractual.

 

[jbander]

Literally, well regulated militia of the United States

And, it LITERALLY says, "being necessary for the security of a free STATE" not the United States.

A States' sovereign right, expressly declared.

The court interprets the constitution, the court can regulate firearms, the court has regulated firearms and the court will regulate firearms in the future.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree with you; what is your position on the complaints of the lgbt community?

You mean same-sex marriage?

Marriage is a contract. Nothing more.

Consenting people with legal capacity (old enough to enter a contract and mentally sound) of any sex can enter into a contract.

Government's only purpose regarding contracts is to interpret and enforce their terms as binding obligations. Nothing more. In other words, people do not need to ask government for permission to enter a marriage contract with each other.

Furthermore, see the Contract Clause, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Seems pretty clear, but no. We had to have years of debate and a SCOTUS decision based on equal protection.

We didn't need all that.

Everyone lost sight of the legal meaning of marriage. Contractual.

about military service.

 

[danielpalos]

Literally, well regulated militia of the United States

And, it LITERALLY says, "being necessary for the security of a free STATE" not the United States.

A States' sovereign right, expressly declared.

The court interprets the constitution, the court can regulate firearms, the court has regulated firearms and the court will regulate firearms in the future.

Only Congress is delegated the power to do that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

why not? Labor costs may be higher; but, any public sector has recourse to forms of State Capitalism.

Why not?

and there is very little recourse

Look up the Big Dig and notice that it was 700% over budget.

Only government contracts go that far over budget

Lousy management. Hoover Dam was ahead of schedule and under budget.

I always get a hoot of these fringe characters, with their attacking everyone because they are socialist and suggest that The private sector would have a chance against Government when it comes to running 3/4 of what the government runs. And the enemy of this country is regulations, That's just funny. What would be the new life expectancy of workers or the Military be, if it was run with a profit motive and no regulations, These people are clowns. Without regulation the American corporation would eat are children for a profit . How do I know because that is exactly what they did before regulations

The private sector is more efficient than government always has been always will be because unlike the government the private sector doesn't have a blank check or hundreds of millions of people to take money from

why not privatize our socialized wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

Hey Dory you forgot again that I have said we should abolish the war on drugs

 

[Skull Pilot]

why not? Labor costs may be higher; but, any public sector has recourse to forms of State Capitalism.

Why not?

and there is very little recourse

Look up the Big Dig and notice that it was 700% over budget.

Only government contracts go that far over budget

Lousy management. Hoover Dam was ahead of schedule and under budget.

I always get a hoot of these fringe characters, with their attacking everyone because they are socialist and suggest that The private sector would have a chance against Government when it comes to running 3/4 of what the government runs. And the enemy of this country is regulations, That's just funny. What would be the new life expectancy of workers or the Military be, if it was run with a profit motive and no regulations, These people are clowns. Without regulation the American corporation would eat are children for a profit . How do I know because that is exactly what they did before regulations

The private sector is more efficient than government always has been always will be because unlike the government the private sector doesn't have a blank check or hundreds of millions of people to take money from

Baloni the project gets x amount of dollars, you I hate our government wanks are blinded by your hate as your whole hate party is,

Really?

Then why was the Big Dig 700% over budget?

And I don't belong to a political flock like you do

I think for myself

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

about military service.

I didn't support "don't ask, don't tell" because it is discriminatory and none of their goddamn business.

I do support a "don't ask, don't care" policy.

On the topic of transgender, that obviously causes a lot of problems and expense. I don't necessarily support Trump's decision on that, but I do understand the nature of that problem and it will require reasonable accommodations and concessions on both sides of the issue.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only Congress is delegated the power to do that.

I agree.

Courts do not regulate anything.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not?

and there is very little recourse

Look up the Big Dig and notice that it was 700% over budget.

Only government contracts go that far over budget

Lousy management. Hoover Dam was ahead of schedule and under budget.

I always get a hoot of these fringe characters, with their attacking everyone because they are socialist and suggest that The private sector would have a chance against Government when it comes to running 3/4 of what the government runs. And the enemy of this country is regulations, That's just funny. What would be the new life expectancy of workers or the Military be, if it was run with a profit motive and no regulations, These people are clowns. Without regulation the American corporation would eat are children for a profit . How do I know because that is exactly what they did before regulations

The private sector is more efficient than government always has been always will be because unlike the government the private sector doesn't have a blank check or hundreds of millions of people to take money from

why not privatize our socialized wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

Hey Dory you forgot again that I have said we should abolish the war on drugs

no, just asking the right wing; why they can't "keep a steady course", regarding their republican doctrine.

 

[danielpalos]

about military service.

I didn't support "don't ask, don't tell" because it is discriminatory and none of their goddamn business.

I do support a "don't ask, don't care" policy.

On the topic of transgender, that obviously causes a lot of problems and expense. I don't necessarily support Trump's decision on that, but I do understand the nature of that problem and it will require reasonable accommodations and concessions on both sides of the issue.

StarShip Troopers wouldn't have a problem; why should the Militia of the United States?