Into the Night
Verified User
I can't see you!!!
I can't hear you!!!
Gomers just never learn, do they?
Ah...let 'em plug his ears. It only means he can't see what you say about him now.
Question for our gun enthusiast friends.
- Thread starter StoneByStone
- Start date
Ah...let 'em plug his ears. It only means he can't see what you say about him now.
Into the Night
Verified User
Actually, he knows it far more than you do.
The 1st amendment is not applicable to the States. The 2nd through 9th amendments are. They always were.
You have looked at neither the Constitution of the United States nor history. You also don't recognize the authority of the Constitution of the United States.
No court has the authority to change the Constitution. This ruling is unconstitutional.
By breaking the law.
Nope. No court has the authority to change the Constitution. It cannot grant itself to change the Constitution either.
Inversion fallacy.
Into the Night
Verified User
Actually, he did. Argument of the stone.
No, he has read the Constitution, just as I have.
No court has the authority to change the Constitution. Your 'incorporation process' never happened. Amendments 2 through 9 already apply to the States. Amendment 1 does not apply to the States.
They do.
They can't, legally.
Inversion fallacy.
The ONLY law in question here is the Constitution. It is the ONLY authoritative reference on what is in the Constitution.
Denying logic does not make it go away.
Into the Night
Verified User
domer76 and StonebyStone are the same person.
Into the Night
Verified User
No, we just use the same references. Logic is the same no matter who uses it. The Constitution is the same no matter who reads it. He is in Wisconsin, I am in the Seattle area.
Never did.
We ARE two different people. We're just using the same references. They do not change.
Into the Night
Verified User
Yup. They use the same arguments. domer76 and StonebyStone are the same person.
We thought you were the same person because we didn't think two people would not know searches can be made without a warrant or not know about incorporation.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
The thought of our two user names being attached to the same person really burns your grits, don't it Gomer?
We aren't the same person, of course, since we live half way across the country from each other, are at much different stages of our lives, and have different hobbies/interests, but don't let our vastly different identities get in the way of your beautiful mind...
They both take the US Constitution literally... They MUST be the same person! 
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Nor can he offer up a direct response to what I say about him now. I'm perfectly fine with that.
The funny part is that he can still see our comments whenever someone else quotes our comments, so even "ignoring" us doesn't completely remove our comments from his sight. We still stay rent free in his head, all the while he has made it harder on himself to directly respond to us. His loss...
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Except for all the parts where they were different, of course...
I didn't say "jury nullification"... but yes, I was the one pondering that there is nothing compelling a State to adhere to federal laws which are unconstitutional. You mentioned Article 6 Paragraph 2, then I told you to re-read it (to catch that little bit which says "...which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..."
Beats me...
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Except the parts which were answered differently, of course...
Yes, we both share that same style of responding to posts. We like to break down posts by individual argument so that each argument gets addressed.
Yes, the language will be similar, since we are both making use of the same source, the US Constitution.
More than just us two have attacked your arguments, Gomer...
We rarely "thank" each other. There really isn't much point. I will sometimes "thank" a post which I agree with and that gives me a good laugh, but other than that there isn't really much rhyme or reason as to which posts I "thank".
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Yet, you can still see our comments about you whenever someone quotes them, right Gomer??
That's gotta be overcookin' yer grits, ain't it Gomer??
True, I guess having the same misunderstanding of the Constitution fooled me.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
I don't know it perfectly by any means, but I do know it quite well. YOU, on the other hand, don't know it at all it seems...
You've completely lost context here. I've never asserted that the 1st Amendment restricted the States; YOU are the one who asserted that, and asserts that again in a little bit here. I've simply directed you to the clear cut language of the 1st Amendment which specifically addresses Congress. Congress is NOT the States.
Yes, I can.
No, YOU do.
I am aware of the ruling. It was unconstitutional.
Unconstitutionally. They had to change the Constitution in order to arrive at that particular ruling. SCOTUS does not have the authority to change the Constitution.
Your conclusion doesn't follow.
The same way that a murderer murders, a thief steals, a speeder speeds, a druggie drives under the influence, etc...
Nope.
Inversion Fallacy.
The key part of that claim is proving it. Can you, boy?
But you both chose to leave out the same provisions of the Constitution such as the words "unreasonable" searches and misinterpreted that to mean all searches without a warrant are illegal and neither knowing about incorporation.