Infringement

[Into the Night]

Infringe has no connotation to self defense.

The way you are using it does.

Did Mommy skip English in homeschool.

No, you just can't stay on topic and you keep losing context.

People do not have a right to any gun, any place, any time. Try to educate yourself, moron.

Yes they do.

You don’t have a fucking clue what inversion fallacy is.

An inversion fallacy is projecting an argument that applies to you on to others. This is a type of false equivalence fallacy, and is sometimes referred to simply as 'projection'.

 

[domer76]

The way you are using it does.

No, you just can't stay on topic and you keep losing context.

Yes they do.

An inversion fallacy is projecting an argument that applies to you on to others.

Inversion fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

Educate yourself, moron

You are clueless on the definition of infringement. Because you are too stupid to understand the simple definition, you are too stupid to understand how I use it.

Heller, dumbfuck. How many times do I need to quote it?

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in thbopinione historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”

 

[Gonzomin]

Militias are not a requirement. The 2nd amendment discusses TWO rights, not one.

1) The right of a free State to defend itself by forming militias. Several States currently have active militias. This protects the States from a rogue federal government.
2) The right of a person to defend himself by bearing arms. That means buying, owning, and using guns as well as any other type of arm. This protects the individual from a rogue State or federal government, as well as from wild animals, pests, criminals, etc.

The Constitution does not grant these rights. These rights are inherently a right of Man simply because he is a living breathing thing. States are made up of individuals.

Only say it in article 2 so yes it is.I suppose the silence on grenade launchers makes them legal too.

 

[domer76]

Militias are not a requirement. The 2nd amendment discusses TWO rights, not one.

1) The right of a free State to defend itself by forming militias. Several States currently have active militias. This protects the States from a rogue federal government.
2) The right of a person to defend himself by bearing arms. That means buying, owning, and using guns as well as any other type of arm. This protects the individual from a rogue State or federal government, as well as from wild animals, pests, criminals, etc.

The Constitution does not grant these rights. These rights are inherently a right of Man simply because he is a living breathing thing. States are made up of individuals.

Bearing arms is not a right of Man you fucking moron. It’s a right granted, out of all the countries in the world, to the US and maybe one other country. Another uninformed comment.

You cannot name one “inherent” right of man that is universally held. You can’t even define what that is.

 

[Into the Night]

Inversion fallacy: ...deleted Holy Link...

1) Wikipedia is summarily discarded. You cannot use that as a reference with me.
2) You linked to an unrelated fallacy that has nothing to do with an inversion fallacy.
False authority fallacy. Redirection fallacy.

...deleted insult...
You are clueless on the definition of infringement.
Because you are too stupid to understand the simple definition, you are too stupid to understand how I use it.
...deleted unrelated chanting...

You are using it to mean infringement on gun rights by gun control laws, and moving the goalposts to mean property rights are gun control laws. That's a fallacy, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

Only say it in article 2 so yes it is.I suppose the silence on grenade launchers makes them legal too.

Exactly right.

 

[Into the Night]

Bearing arms is not a right of Man you fucking moron.

Yes it is. Man has the right to defend himself by any means necessary, simply because he a living, breathing, thing. It is no different than any animal.

It’s a right granted, out of all the countries in the world, to the US and maybe one other country. Another uninformed comment.

Constitutions do not grant rights. Neither do governments.

You cannot name one “inherent” right of man that is universally held.

The right to life. The right to believe in whatever God or gods you wish. The right to your personal viewpoint. The right to be free to obtain the necessary means to survive. The right to self defense. The right to the defense of others. The right to pursue happiness. The right to reproduce if you have the means to do so. This is not an exhaustive list.

No government grants these rights. No constitution grants these rights.

You can’t even define what that is.

An inherent right is a right that exists because Man is alive. Whether those rights come from a God or gods is immaterial, but there is no harm to claim such.

 

[domer76]

1) Wikipedia is summarily discarded. You cannot use that as a reference with me.
2) You linked to an unrelated fallacy that has nothing to do with an inversion fallacy.
False authority fallacy. Redirection fallacy.

You are using it to mean infringement on gun rights by gun control laws, and moving the goalposts to mean property rights are gun control laws. That's a fallacy, dude.

 

[domer76]

Yes it is. Man has the right to defend himself by any means necessary, simply because he a living, breathing, thing. It is no different than any animal.

Constitutions do not grant rights. Neither do governments.

The right to life. The right to believe in whatever God or gods you wish. The right to your personal viewpoint. The right to be free to obtain the necessary means to survive. The right to self defense. The right to the defense of others. The right to pursue happiness. The right to reproduce if you have the means to do so. This is not an exhaustive list.

No government grants these rights. No constitution grants these rights.

An inherent right is a right that exists because Man is alive. Whether those rights come from a God or gods is immaterial, but there is no harm to claim such.

One can defend themselves. Your stupid assumption that you have a right to a gun to do so is absurd. Most of the rest of the workd says you are full of shit.

Yeah, punk. Governments grant and remove rights. It’s the height of ignorance that you think differently. There is no right to bear arms in the rest of the world because their governments have not recognized nor granted that right.

Those aren’t rights. They’re abilities. As a non-Muslim, many of those extremists believe you have no right to life. So, your premise fails. There are no universal rights. Only what YOU believe are universal rights.

Man is alive because man is alive. There are no rights associated with existence. A tree is alive.

Failure pal.

 

[Gonzomin]

So, which gun control law are you citing that does not "limit or undermine" one's right to bear arms as I asked in the opening post?

Try licensing and requiring training. We do that with cars. Send the gun lovers to training schools and teach them the laws.

 

[Into the Night]

One can defend themselves.

By any means they are capable of. That includes the use of the gun.

Your stupid assumption that you have a right to a gun to do so is absurd.

No, it isn't. See your nearest war zone.

Most of the rest of the workd says you are full of shit.

YOU don't get to speak for the rest of the world. You are not the Dictator of the World. You only get to speak for yourself.

Yeah, punk. Governments grant and remove rights.

No, they don't. They try, but they can't.

It’s the height of ignorance that you think differently.

Inversion fallacy.

There is no right to bear arms in the rest of the world

Yes there is.

because their governments have not recognized nor granted that right.

No government can stop it from happening. They can't grant that right or take it away.

Those aren’t rights.

Yes they are.

They’re abilities.

No, they are rights.

As a non-Muslim, many of those extremists believe you have no right to life.

Too bad. I do. I also have the right to defend that life from said extremists.

So, your premise fails.

Circular argument fallacy.

There are no universal rights.

Yes there are.

Only what YOU believe are universal rights.

They are there, whether you choose to believe they are there or not.

Man is alive because man is alive.

Brilliant observation!

There are no rights associated with existence.

Life is not mere existence.

A tree is alive.

And it has the right to defend itself using any means it has.

Failure pal.

Circular argument fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Try licensing and requiring training. We do that with cars. Send the gun lovers to training schools and teach them the laws.

Licensing means asking government for permission to use a right. No thanks.
Requiring training means asking government for permission to use a right. No thanks.

Everyone is expected to know the law, whether you are driving a car, shooting a gun, or just walking down the street. There are already laws against murder. There are already laws against reckless endangerment. None of these are gun control laws. There is also the path of private lawsuits to obtain compensation from someone that was careless.

The Constitution of the United States does not empower the federal government to require any training program or require a license to use a gun. The 2nd amendment specifically prohibits such a law.
The States are under the same requirements. By joining the Union, they agreed to this. Many of them even declare similar wording in their own constitutions.

Gun control laws are unconstitutional, not only at the federal level, but also at most State levels directly.

 

[domer76]

By any means they are capable of. That includes the use of the gun.

No, it isn't. See your nearest war zone.

YOU don't get to speak for the rest of the world. You are not the Dictator of the World. You only get to speak for yourself.

No, they don't. They try, but they can't.

Inversion fallacy.

Yes there is.

No government can stop it from happening. They can't grant that right or take it away.

Yes they are.

No, they are rights.

Too bad. I do. I also have the right to defend that life from said extremists.

Circular argument fallacy.

Yes there are.

They are there, whether you choose to believe they are there or not.

Brilliant observation!

Life is not mere existence.

And it has the right to defend itself using any means it has.

Circular argument fallacy.

What a fucking illiterate dunce. Brush up on your fallacies, moron. You are failing miserably.

 

[Into the Night]

What a fucking illiterate dunce. Brush up on your fallacies, moron. You are failing miserably.

Insult fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Circular argument fallacy.
No valid argument presented. Trolling. You have lost context again.

 

[domer76]

Insult fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Circular argument fallacy.
No valid argument presented. Trolling. You have lost context again.

Name the countries where gun ownership is a right, dumbfuck.

 

[Tkaffen]

Just the opposite, illiterate racist cunt.



You must be related to that jerk characterassassin.

 

[Into the Night]

Name the countries where gun ownership is a right, dumbfuck.

Insufficient space to list all the nations here. See a list of all nations currently on the Earth. You can then check each one for their gun laws.

 

[domer76]

Insufficient space to list all the nations here. See a list of all nations currently on the Earth. You can then check each one for their gun laws.

Cut the diversionary bullshit. I didn’t ask for gun laws, dumbfuck. I asked for a list of countries that includes a RIGHT to bear arms.

 

[Flash]

There is nothing in the Constitution suggesting these rights are inalienable. The freedoms included in the Bill of Rights were those freedoms as they existed at the time. Courts have since expanded those rights to give us more freedom from government restrictions than in the early republic.

 

[StoneByStone]

What gun "control" laws do not "limit" or undermine one's right to bear arms?

Hopefully none. The point of gun control is to limit gun rights.