Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[Into the Night]

See there? How ignorant you are!

Inversion fallacy.

At least you admit it!

No.

Go learn the Constitutional process and get back to us OK?

The Constitution is not a 'process'. It simply is. You might try reading it sometime.

Feel like clearing one of your paradoxes? You have two of them now.
1) I do not want to take away guns.
2) Guns should be taken away until one is license to have them.

1) The Constitution supersedes acts of Congress.
2) Acts of Congress supersede the Constitution.

For each paradox you must accept one argument and utterly discard the other. It's the only way to clear a paradox. To argue both sides of a paradox is irrational.

 

[Into the Night]

Amendments to the Constitution and Acts that become law- are the Constitution idiot!

WRONG. Only amendments become part of the Constitution, and only after they have been ratified by the States. Only the States can amend the Constitution.

Go learn the Constitutional process and get back to us OK?

There is no such thing. The Constitution is not a 'process'. It simply is the Constitution.

 

[gfm7175]

Hey stupid liar- I never said guns should be taken away until one is licensed- THAT'S YOU RUNNING YOUR MOUTH MAKING CRAZY ALLEGATIONS!

No, that's the very argument that you made. Apparently the answer to ITN's question "are you now going to deny your own argument?" is a resounding YES. The paradox that you are locked in still stands, as pretending the paradox doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

 

[Into the Night]

Amendments are the Constitution, acts passed by legislative bodies have to be in compliance with the Constitution.

See, you learned something and that's saying a lot for a stupid nigger like you.

I don't think he's learned it. He's still locked in paradox on this one.

1) The Constitution supersedes acts of Congress.
2) Acts of Congress supersede the Constitution.

He really is becoming quite irrational.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

Yes, Bump-Stocks are arms!

Are Nuclear Missiles arms?

Do you think citizens should be allowed to own them?

There is a limit to everything, and that includes arms- arms of all kinds!

Congress sets those limits in the way of an ACT at their discretion- and at the approval of the executive branch!

And if they have a 60% vote- Fuck what the president says- it becomes law!

Government 101 dude!

Study up!

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, Bump-Stocks are arms!

True.

Are Nuclear Missiles arms?

Yes.

Do you think citizens should be allowed to own them?

Yes.

There is a limit to everything, and that includes arms- arms of all kinds!

Why? By what authority to you claim this? The Constitution does not specify arms by type or practicality.

Congress sets those limits in the way of an ACT at their discretion- and at the approval of the executive branch!
And if they have a 60% vote- Fuck what the president says- it becomes law!

Not if it's unconstitutional.

Government 101 dude!

We are not a democracy, dude. We are a federated republic. We have constitutions.

Study up!

Take your own advice. You might actually try READING the Constitution sometime.

You are still locked in paradox. You are being irrational. You MUST clear your paradox to coherently discuss this issue.

 

[CFM]

I don't think he's learned it. He's still locked in paradox on this one.

1) The Constitution supersedes acts of Congress.
2) Acts of Congress supersede the Constitution.

He really is becoming quite irrational.

It's clear he doesn't understand the concept of Constitutional supremacy. He doesn't know the difference between an amendment and an act of congress.

 

[CFM]

Yes, Bump-Stocks are arms!

Are Nuclear Missiles arms?

Do you think citizens should be allowed to own them?

There is a limit to everything, and that includes arms- arms of all kinds!

Congress sets those limits in the way of an ACT at their discretion- and at the approval of the executive branch!

And if they have a 60% vote- Fuck what the president says- it becomes law!

Government 101 dude!

Study up!

Bump stocks are not arms. They are accessories that aren't required in order for the arm to be used.

60% can override a Presidential veto? You're the one that needs Government 101.

 

[Into the Night]

It's clear he doesn't understand the concept of Constitutional supremacy. He doesn't know the difference between an amendment and an act of congress.

I think you might be right about that.

 

[Into the Night]

Bump stocks are not arms. They are accessories that aren't required in order for the arm to be used.

So are scopes, speed loading equipment, larger magazines, etc. They are all part of the weapon. The 2nd amendment does not specify any weapon by type or options installed on it.

60% can override a Presidential veto? You're the one that needs Government 101.

Contextomy fallacy. Irrationality. You must clear your paradox. 60% does not override the Constitution.

 

[CFM]

I think you might be right about that.

He thinks an amendment and an act of Congress are the same thing.

 

[rjhenn]

I was referring to enlarged amygdalas, the fear center of the brain, in conservatives.

The amygdala is in total control of control freaks.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[CFM]

So are scopes, speed loading equipment, larger magazines, etc. They are all part of the weapon. The 2nd amendment does not specify any weapon by type or options installed on it.

Contextomy fallacy. Irrationality. You must clear your paradox. 60% does not override the Constitution.

That the gun will still fire with/without a scope or any other accessory means they aren't arms.

Adolph thinks 60% can. He said so.

 

[Into the Night]

That the gun will still fire with/without a scope or any other accessory means they aren't arms.

Adolph thinks 60% can. He said so.

I consider them arms. They are there to make the weapon more useful for a particular purpose. I also consider each of these devices similarly protected by the right to self defense, Article I, and the 2nd and 10th amendments.

He also said it can't.. He's still locked in paradox.

 

[CFM]

I consider them arms. They are there to make the weapon more useful for a particular purpose. I also consider each of these devices similarly protected by the right to self defense, Article I, and the 2nd and 10th amendments.

He also said it can't.. He's still locked in paradox.

You can consider them what you want. That doesn't make it so.

Something enhancing a weapon or making it more useful doesn't make it an arm unless it changes whether or not the weapon can function.

 

[rjhenn]

Sad how you could care less about law and order, and think it' OK for anyone to own a gun, carry a gun, buy a gun, and sell a gun just because they want one, without any system in place to insure that only responsible people are buying, selling, owning, and carrying guns in our society.

So, could it be that you have something to hide?

Who gets to define "responsible"?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

And how do you equate that to Gun Laws in ever state already.

Are you saying that you do not follow laws such as the number of shotgun shells you are allowed to have in your shotgun's chamber for your state?

Are you saying that you have the right to go out and purchase a machine gun- just because you want one?

I have news for you people with cavemen mentality- There are laws on the books that supersede the 2nd Amendment now and already!

SO, if I were you, I would know what they are! It seems you need a refresher course!

And everyone who ever took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution should be opposed to those laws.
And you continue to display abject ignorance. Any firearm will only have one shell at a time in the chamber.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

NO! I still do not want to take your guns away.

But, if you fail to obtain a license, and you fail to register your guns, you should pay a fine as you got caught with a gun in your vehicle or on your person in public. And if you have several violations, at some point you could lose your license and not be legally able to own, carry, buy, or sell guns until you qualify to be reinstated with a proper license!

That is what I am saying!

And what good do you imagine that registering guns does?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Still trying to imply that my proposal of registering guns and licensing is a paradox, when I have made no contradictions, and there are clear and sound reasons for having a policy like that in place, and I have demonstrated and explained every one of them.

In fact, you are the one that seems to be locked in a paradox with your opposition and rejection of my proposal without any sound reason for your position!

Is the licensing for drivers of automobiles, and the registration of vehicles a paradoxical viewpoint? No!

Which makes you the one with the cotradictory and paradoxical viewpoint!

You don't need a license in order to exercise a right. Or perhaps we should make you get a license before being allowed to post here, or anywhere.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

You seem to not understand what Amendment/Acts to our Constitution are?

And you seem to misunderstand how Amendments and Acts by Congress supersedes the original Constitution.

Study up- and get back to us when you understand the way our government and the Constitutional process actually works- and according to our Constitution!

"Acts by Congress" do not supersede the Constitution. You appear to be quite ignorant of how our government works.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk