Wisconsin Supreme Court hands Democrats huge win with ballot box decision

[Into the Night]

When you decided to not defend your position, that is conceding.

SEMANTICS GAMES WILL NOT SAVE YOU, FUCKER.

 

[IBDaMann]

Then tell me some of the things that make BOTH the Federal military and state Militia's "well" regulated.

The standardized training and the same-sourcing for acquisition.

Lol... Says the person actually believes the federal and state militaries are "well" regulated.

They are. Speak to you local national guard personnel.

Someone did and I guarantee you that person had no fucking clue what a nuclear weapon was and they'd be incredibly concerned if it was later determined to be ok for citizens to own them.

To what extent are you claiming that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed and remain within the bounds of the Constitution?

Still lying....For the THIRD time, I asked if a child could walk into a gun shop and buy a gun since 2A says NOTHING about age restrictions.

Your question uses the word "could" and not the word "should." If you are asking about "should" then you can't ask about "could."

I never questioned whether or not a child could own a gun.

The topic is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. You are talking about the mechanics of the purchase and avoiding infringements on the right.

Yep, I will until you start answering the questions I ASKED.

Too funny. You still have over a dozen questions outstanding for which you owe answers.

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA. DON'T TRY TO DENY DEMOCRAT ELECTION FRAUD.

What fraud? How many fraudulent ballots? How many counterfeit ballots? How many ballots have been harvested? In which states were they found?

 

[ZenMode]

SEMANTICS GAMES WILL NOT SAVE YOU, FUCKER.

It's not semantics. I asked you a clarifying question, multiple times, and you chose not to answer it.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

Who was that crazy bitch with Giuliani? The one who had sworn affidavits. She’s disqualified to run because she lied on sworn affidavits. They are meaningless.

As meaningless as eyewitness “accounts” especially from lying Trumpers. They’ve all been refuted.

EVERY. FUCKING. ONE

no they haven't.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

What fraud? How many fraudulent ballots? How many counterfeit ballots? How many ballots have been harvested? In which states were they found?

are you saying there was zero fraud in 2020?

 

[ZenMode]

The standardized training and the same-sourcing for acquisition.

Can you compare the training the average state militia member goes through to the average training a federal militia member goes through? I can't speak for all states, but in AZ there is no required training unless you plan to conceal carry. I think that class is somewhere around 4 hours. If you aren't going to conceal carry, the training is zero hours. How does that compare to the federal militia training?

They are. Speak to you local national guard personnel.

Nice try! The claim is that ALL gun owners are members of a "well" regulated state militia.

To what extent are you claiming that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed and remain within the bounds of the Constitution?

Beside the point for now but, per Into the Night, we should only need to reas the words of the 2A to know if owning a nuke is permissable.

Your question uses the word "could" and not the word "should." If you are asking about "should" then you can't ask about "could."

The wording of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution says nothing about age and supposedly ALL we have to do is read the words to fully understand what is meant. So, I've read the words many times and don't see an age limitation. Based on that, what would be the basis for disallowing an 8 year old to purchase a gun?

The topic is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. You are talking about the mechanics of the purchase and avoiding infringements on the right.

The topic is the claim, by Into the Night, that all we have to do is read words on a page to fully understand the intent of the Constitution. For example, when SCOTUS recently ruled on Trump's immunity from prosecution, a) they should have all agreed b) they should have ONLY needed to read the words of the Constitution and had a decision in minutes, because reading words is all that is needed, right? No trying to interpret (or whatever word you like) the meaning.

Too funny. You still have over a dozen questions outstanding for which you owe answers.

Nope.

 

[ZenMode]

are you saying there was zero fraud in 2020?

There is a meaningless amount of fraud in every election. "Meaningless" in that it never amounts to enough to change the results.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Voting made easy is a win for everyone.

except the US constitution, which clearly states it is the state legislature and not the state SC which sets the rules for elections......the 2024 election conducted in WI will, by definition, be unconstitutional just as it was in 2020.....between the 2022 Tiene case and the 2024 Priorities case two things changed.......two Demmycrats got elected to the SCOW and the unconstitutional suddenly became the law of WI.....cheating made easy......

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

There is a meaningless amount of fraud in every election. "Meaningless" in that it never amounts to enough to change the results.

it does, but judges are corrupt and refuse to add it up, instead treating every incident as isolated.

 

[ZenMode]

it does, but judges are corrupt and refuse to add it up, instead treating every incident as isolated.

It doesn't. There are databases that track voter fraud and the numbers never come close to what would be needed to change results. Georgia did a full audit after 2020 and found, if I recall correctly, less than five fraudulent votes. Arizona did a full forensic audit and found a total of 35 questionable ballots. Not fraudulent, just questionable and needing further investigation.

 

[IBDaMann]

Can you compare the training the average state militia member goes through to the average training a federal militia member goes through?

It's the same training. The National Guard sends its people to the same active duty military training. Everybody gets the same training.

The Vermont Air National Guard has the same F-35s that the US Air Force has, for example.

I can't speak for all states, but in AZ there is no required training unless you plan to conceal carry.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, whether or not they are in a militia or the National Guard or have ever received any training.

The claim is that ALL gun owners are members of a "well" regulated state militia.

That is what you are erroneously asserting is the claim of people for whom you do not speak.

There is no requirement for anyone to be in any militia, well regulated or otherwise. Each sovereign State has the inalienable right to ensure that it remains free by maintaining a well regulated Militia, which is recognized as being necessary to its security.

... per Into the Night, we should only need to reas the words of the 2A to know if owning a nuke is permissable.

Correct. The ability to outlaw any particular arm equates to the ability to outlaw every particular arm, which not only infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but it totally nullifies the 2nd Amendment. This isn't any sort of question of interpreting anything. It's a matter of reading the straightforward English and performing some basic, 3rd grade-level deductive reasoning that any rational adult can perform.

Ergo, a citizen can own a nuke, as an inalienable right of We the People. No government has any authority to prohibit any arm, and no government has any authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Would you look at that ... no interpretation of any code or language or pictograms necessary.

The wording of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution says nothing about age and supposedly ALL we have to do is read the words to fully understand what is meant.

Yes. Not merely "supposedly."

So, I've read the words many times and don't see an age limitation.

Correct. You also don't see any other clauses like "having been convicted of a felony" or "having been declared insane by the government." There are no clauses. No interpretation needed. It's an inalienable right. No interpretation needed.

Did I point out that no interpretation is needed?

Based on that, what would be the basis for disallowing an 8 year old to purchase a gun?

I disallowed my son from purchasing a firearm when he was 8 years old.

The topic is the claim, by Into the Night, that all we have to do is read words on a page to fully understand the intent of the Constitution.

Into the Night sometimes states the obvious.

For example, when SCOTUS recently ruled on Trump's immunity from prosecution, a) they should have all agreed

Incorrect. Final decisions are subjective. Different people will arrive at different final decisions based on the same understanding of the same law. What about this do you not understand?

 

[ZenMode]

It's the same training. The National Guard sends its people to the same active duty military training. Everybody gets the same training.

The Vermont Air National Guard has the same F-35s that the US Air Force has, for example.

I'm not talking about the national guard. I'm talking about your average person on the street who can legally own hundreds of guns if he/she desired with no militia regulation, much less a "well" regulated militia.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, whether or not they are in a militia or the National Guard or have ever received any training.

You intentionally left out the part where it says "As part of a well regulated militia...." ALL words matter, not just the ones convenient to your argument.

That is what you are erroneously asserting is the claim of people for whom you do not speak.

There is no requirement for anyone to be in any militia, well regulated or otherwise. Each sovereign State has the inalienable right to ensure that it remains free by maintaining a well regulated Militia, which is recognized as being necessary to its security.

The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms is tied to being apart of a well regulated militia.

Correct. The ability to outlaw any particular arm equates to the ability to outlaw every particular arm, which not only infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but it totally nullifies the 2nd Amendment. This isn't any sort of question of interpreting anything. It's a matter of reading the straightforward English and performing some basic, 3rd grade-level deductive reasoning that any rational adult can perform.

The words also CLEARLY states that the right to bear arms is contingent to being apart of a well regulated militia. Why do you keep ignoring that part? The claim is that we need to only look at the words. That means all of the words, not just some of the words.

Ergo, a citizen can own a nuke, as an inalienable right of We the People. No government has any authority to prohibit any arm, and no government has any authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I think you meant to say "As part of a well regulated militia, a citizen can own a nuke, right?

Would you look at that ... no interpretation of any code or language or pictograms necessary.


Yes. Not merely "supposedly."


Correct. You also don't see any other clauses like "having been convicted of a felony" or "having been declared insane by the government." There are no clauses. No interpretation needed. It's an inalienable right. No interpretation needed.

Right, so a felon, as part of a well regulated state militia can own a gun. When is this regulation going to start? Again, you don't even need to prove an ability to use a gun to purchase one in AZ. There is zero training. Those who purchase a gun have never, ever, EVER been had a single minute of training as part of being a member of the AZ militia.

Explain.

Did I point out that no interpretation is needed?

Right. So, as I've asked repeatedly, can you please explain what "well" means as it relates to a state regulating arms for their militia and compare that to the federal militia regulation.

 

[Into the Night]

What fraud? How many fraudulent ballots? How many counterfeit ballots? How many ballots have been harvested? In which states were they found?

RQAA. DON'T TRY TO DENY DEMOCRAT ELECTION FRAUD.

 

[Into the Night]

It's not semantics. I asked you a clarifying question, multiple times, and you chose not to answer it.

SEMANTICS GAMES WILL NOT SAVE YOU, FUCKER.

 

[Into the Night]

Can you compare the training the average state militia member goes through to the average training a federal militia member goes through? I can't speak for all states, but in AZ there is no required training unless you plan to conceal carry. I think that class is somewhere around 4 hours. If you aren't going to conceal carry, the training is zero hours. How does that compare to the federal militia training?Nice try! The claim is that ALL gun owners are members of a "well" regulated state militia.Beside the point for now but, per Into the Night, we should only need to reas the words of the 2A to know if owning a nuke is permissable. The wording of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution says nothing about age and supposedly ALL we have to do is read the words to fully understand what is meant. So, I've read the words many times and don't see an age limitation. Based on that, what would be the basis for disallowing an 8 year old to purchase a gun? The topic is the claim, by Into the Night, that all we have to do is read words on a page to fully understand the intent of the Constitution. For example, when SCOTUS recently ruled on Trump's immunity from prosecution, a) they should have all agreed b) they should have ONLY needed to read the words of the Constitution and had a decision in minutes, because reading words is all that is needed, right? No trying to interpret (or whatever word you like) the meaning.

Nope.

Go learn English, dope.

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA. DON'T TRY TO DENY DEMOCRAT ELECTION FRAUD.

Again...how many fraudulent ballots were found, so far, and in which states?

 

[ZenMode]

Go learn English, dope.

You were given multiple opportunities and declined.

BLNT!

Who'd of thought that such a simple word would be so difficult to define?

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm not talking about the national guard. I'm talking about your average person

Translation: "I'm talking about We the People"

Yes, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We'll get to your erroneous dependency in just a moment.

on the street who can legally own hundreds of guns if he/she desired with no militia regulation, much less a "well" regulated militia.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of any training, or lack thereof, that We the People might have.

You intentionally left out the part where it says "As part of a well regulated militia...." ALL words matter, not just the ones convenient to your argument.

There is no "as part of" ... which means we're done here.

The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms is tied to being apart of a well regulated militia.

The 2nd Amendment, which is written in plain English, clearly makes no linkage between the two concepts. One must imagine additional wording in order to be able to imagine a linkage. Alas, there are no additional words beyond what is written in the 2nd Amendment, thus precluding any linkages whatsoever.

The remainder of your post is predicated on your imaginary delusion of bizarre linkages that don't exist, much less that CLEARLY exist.

Dismissed.

 

[IBDaMann]

Again...how many fraudulent ballots were found, so far, and in which states?

Again, why are none of the affidavits refuted after four years?