HR 127 is a way to confiscate guns

[Taft2016]

Won't pass, it's a pipe dream even with control of all three houses and you cannot demand licensing of a right.

You might want to let New York know that.

 

[Flash]

No court has to. No court has the authority to change or interpret the Constitution.

You claim the courts cannot interpret the Constitution; yet, you make several statements (mis)interpreting it according to court decisions.

 

[Underdog]

You might want to let New York know that.

I'm in jersey, it's way worse.


anyway, it's one step away from the SCOTUS taking a case on it.

 

[Into the Night]

Name-calling fallacy.

Dropping context completely now, eh?

 

[Into the Night]

Name-calling fallacy.

An argument was presented, fucktwit. Fallacy fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

You are the one who denies the Constitution by denying incorporation

The Constitution of the United States wasn't written in 1925.

which makes you the "bad" American by refusing to learn basic constitutional principles included in all law books and and multiple Supreme Court cases.

The Constitution is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution. No court case, no judge, no law book. The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

You also disagree with the founders who wrote the Constitution since they all knew the Bill of Rights was written to apply to the central government only.

You don't get to speak for the dead. You only get to speak for you.

 

[Into the Night]

You might want to let New York know that.

The SOTNY is effectively not a State. It denies the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of New York. It's current form of government is an oligarchy, almost a dictatorship.

 

[Into the Night]

You claim the courts cannot interpret the Constitution; yet, you make several statements (mis)interpreting it according to court decisions.

No court has authority to change the Constitution of the United States. No court has authority to interpret the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm in jersey, it's way worse.


anyway, it's one step away from the SCOTUS taking a case on it.

Feel sorry for ya pal.

 

[no worries]

You claim the courts cannot interpret the Constitution; yet, you make several statements (mis)interpreting it according to court decisions.

The moron has tried the same argument with me, that is literally the courts job, interpreting the constitution, if, how and where it applies.

Nothing but a troll, who BTW likely hasn't realized he on my troll list.

 

[Lightbringer]

The moron has tried the same argument with me, that is literally the courts job, interpreting the constitution, if, how and where it applies.

Nothing but a troll, who BTW likely hasn't realized he on my troll list.

fuckwit.

 

[Flash]

The Constitution of the United States wasn't written in 1925.

The Constitution is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution. No court case, no judge, no law book. The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

You don't get to speak for the dead. You only get to speak for you.

I'm not speaking for the dead. Their own words and actions made their intent clear which you deny.

You are seeking to interpret the Constitution by denying the words of the Bill of Rights but deny the role of the courts to interpret.

 

[Flash]

No court has authority to change the Constitution of the United States. No court has authority to interpret the Constitution of the United States.

You claim the states have that power; yet, the states all recognized the Bill of Rights only restricted the states completing refuting your interpretation.

 

[TexanManWithPlans]

An argument was presented, fucktwit. Fallacy fallacy.

Calm down. No need to spaz out when you're proven wrong.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not speaking for the dead. Their own words and actions made their intent clear which you deny.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

You are seeking to interpret the Constitution by denying the words of the Bill of Rights

I do not deny the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments). I do not deny an part of the Constitution of the United States.

but deny the role of the courts to interpret.

Courts do not have authority to interpret the Constitution. See Article III, which you deny.

 

[Into the Night]

You claim the states have that power; yet, the states all recognized the Bill of Rights only restricted the states completing refuting your interpretation.

Try English next time. It works better.

 

[Into the Night]

Calm down. No need to spaz out when you're proven wrong.

A fallacy is not a proof. Assumption of victory fallacy.

 

[Flash]

Courts do not have authority to interpret the Constitution. See Article III, which you deny.

Neither do you. But court interpretation becomes law.

 

[TexanManWithPlans]

A fallacy is not a proof. Assumption of victory fallacy.

Stating something doesn't make it so.

 

[Flash]

Try English next time. It works better.

It doesn't seem to work with you