Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[Into the Night]

I never withdrew my arguments.

Lie.

I said "You are reading what you want to in my posts---not based on anything I ever said. You are arguing against a straw man."

So you are withdrawing your arguments again?? Make up your mind, dude!

Because you read stuff into my posts I did not say (I want a fascist government run by the courts) does my mean I am withdrawing any actual points I made.

Contextomy fallacy.

When you figure out whether you want to continue your arguments or withdraw them, let me know.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

No where is it mentioned that the "people" are required to currently belong to a militia; but instead it implies that WE ARE THE MILITIA.

The 2nd amendment discusses two rights, not one.

The right of a State to self defense by forming militias made up of the people of that State.
The right of an individual to self defense by bearing arms. This includes the right but is not limited to, to defend your State by joining the State militia or serving it's cause.

 

[Into the Night]

You are living in the Stone Age!

You are not now, nor have you ever been a part of the militia- unless you served your country.

And if you did, the service took away your service weapons away from you before they let you out!

Stupid man thinks he is part of some militia because he totes his gun around!

The army, navy, air force, marines, etc. is NOT the militia. Redefinition fallacy (militia <-> military).

Membership in a State militia is not required. Most States have militias. Washington State currently has about 75 members in the organized militia.

 

[Flash]

Lie.

So you are withdrawing your arguments again?? Make up your mind, dude!

Contextomy fallacy.

When you figure out whether you want to continue your arguments or withdraw them, let me know.

I never withdrew a single argument. That was all your imagination or reading comprehension. That may explain your interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

NO dumbass, I don't intend to entertain your stupidity!

The National Guard is a militia- not you dumb ass.

The National Guard is a federal militia. This is not even addressed by the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment refers to a State's right to self defense by forming organized militias (most States have one), and the individual's right to self defense by bearing arms. It talks about TWO rights, not one.

A State has the right to self defense simply by it's existence as a State, that is, a body of people that have come together to form a republic and who have joined the Union. States defend themselves by forming State militias made up of the people of that State. The National Guard is NOT a State militia of any State.

An individual also has the right to self defense, simply because they are living breathing thing. Every animal, including Man, has the right to defend themselves by any means available to them. Man has the right to bear arms. The federal government and State governments are specifically directed not to interfere with that right.

 

[Into the Night]

I never withdrew a single argument. That was all your imagination or reading comprehension. That may explain your interpretation of the Constitution.

Lie. You are currently locked in paradox. Let me know when you decide whether you want to support your arguments or not.

 

[Into the Night]

Probably because you illegally obtained them!

Serious accusation. Your evidence?

I don't run off- I actually have a life outside of this forum.

Contextomy fallacy.

I don't want to take your playtoys away dude!

Lie. If you have reconsidered, that's probably a wise choice.

Please, just don't shoot up a Kindergarten or C & W outdoor concert or high school with them, OK?

Why would he do that?? Oh...that's right. You are blaming him and all other gun owners for the action of a few individuals.

Bigotry.

 

[Into the Night]

I bought them from the Army.

Nice stuff. Hope you got a good deal on them.

You're here more than I.

He seems to have missed that fact.

I don't consider them toys.

He does.

What makes you think I'd do something like that?

He's a bigot. He's blaming you and all other gun owners for the actions of a few.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The 2nd amendment discusses two rights, not one.

The right of a State to self defense by forming militias made up of the people of that State.
The right of an individual to self defense by bearing arms. This includes the right but is not limited to, to defend your State by joining the State militia or serving it's cause.

I didn't want to overload Adolf's already confused cognitive thought process and tried to keep it simple, with the hopes he would be able to understand.

I see that I failed and he's just not able to understand.

I refer back to WWll:

In response to "Armed civilians no match for armies" (Letters, June 7). In 1963 there was a meeting of the surviving officers of the United States Navy and the Japanese air force that bombed Pearl Harber on Dec. 7, 1941, destroying America's 6th Fleet. One U.S. Navy officer asked the top surviving Japanese officer why did Japan not attack the United States mainland.

The Japanese officer replied they knew America had government-sponsored rifle matches and local municipalities also sponsored rifle, shotgun and pistol matches and Americans were privately and personally armed. They were not going to attack an armed and and trained civilian population that kept these arms in their homes. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

 

[Celticguy]

We're listening???????????????????????????????????

Its to protect the people from tyrants. It defend against those who would infringe on the rights of the citizens.

 

[Flash]

Lie. You are currently locked in paradox. Let me know when you decide whether you want to support your arguments or not.

I've support every argument I've made. That the incorporation process exists, that determining the constitutionality of a congressional law or executive action requires interpreting the Constitution, that the rights in the Bill of Rights now restrict the states, that amendments 2-8 originally restricted the federal government only, etc. All the things that don't exist in your world.

My arguments only cite history and constitutional law and have nothing to do with opinion.

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't want to overload Adolf's already confused cognitive thought process and tried to keep it simple, with the hopes he would be able to understand.

I see that I failed and he's just not able to understand.

I refer back to WWll:

In response to "Armed civilians no match for armies" (Letters, June 7). In 1963 there was a meeting of the surviving officers of the United States Navy and the Japanese air force that bombed Pearl Harber on Dec. 7, 1941, destroying America's 6th Fleet. One U.S. Navy officer asked the top surviving Japanese officer why did Japan not attack the United States mainland.

The Japanese officer replied they knew America had government-sponsored rifle matches and local municipalities also sponsored rifle, shotgun and pistol matches and Americans were privately and personally armed. They were not going to attack an armed and and trained civilian population that kept these arms in their homes. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

I learned long ago that there is really no point to pulling punches with people like that.

They don't understand because they refuse to understand.

 

[Into the Night]

I've support every argument I've made. That the incorporation process exists, that determining the constitutionality of a congressional law or executive action requires interpreting the Constitution, that the rights in the Bill of Rights now restrict the states, that amendments 2-8 originally restricted the federal government only, etc. All the things that don't exist in your world.

My arguments only cite history and constitutional law and have nothing to do with opinion.

So you have decided to implement fascism by oligarchy by use of the courts as that oligarchy?

 

[StoneByStone]

Its to protect the people from tyrants. It defend against those who would infringe on the rights of the citizens.

You know in the real world, that wouldn't work, right?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You know in the real world, that wouldn't work, right?

Care to explain why you FEEL it wouldn't work??

 

[StoneByStone]

Care to explain why you FEEL it wouldn't work??

Are you trolling because you're an angry Incel?

 

[Celticguy]

You know in the real world, that wouldn't work, right?

Tell that to Gabby. And he was a lefty who didnt think she was not tyrant enough.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Are you trolling because you're an angry Incel?

Not angry, one little bit; but I am amused by those who claim something and all they have to go on, are their FEELS.

Just like you.

 

[StoneByStone]

Tell that to Gabby. And he was a lefty who didnt think she way tyrant enough.

I'm so confused.

 

[StoneByStone]

Not angry, one little bit; but I am amused by those who claim something and all they have to go on, are their FEELS.

Just like you.

I notice you didn't answer the question. Interesting..........