- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I spoke to your issue head on. If I had been any more direct you would have marks upon you from the direct impact.
... and .........
you have shown yourself to me wrong over and over
you stated rights are given to us by the bill of rights.....if that was so then the USSC in 1833 when have taken Barron's case, but they stated the 5th did not apply to Barron......then why?..... if the bill of rights gives us our rights.
well using your standard for interpreting the 2A there is no way any of the clauses you claim authorizes Federal Gun control actually does so
why is that?
more evasion. You claimed that "shall not be infringed" does not prevent "infringements" because "infringements" are not mentioned (LOL)
so where is a power to control firearms stated in Sec 8?
it isn't so it doesn't exist
more evasion. You claimed that "shall not be infringed" does not prevent "infringements" because "infringements" are not mentioned (LOL)
so where is a power to control firearms stated in Sec 8?
it isn't so it doesn't exist
Do you mean other than the first score or two score times I pointed it out to you?
You cannot answer a simple question? Why is that?
You cannot answer a simple question? Why is that?
you merely claimed those clauses allowed it. reading them, and using your "exact words" test, your argument has no merit since gun control powers are not mentioned.
I did, you just don't like the answer
I have always been consistent on this issue
you have not been. Your only consistency is to oppose citizens' rights
The one thing you have been consistent about - and I have to give you credit for it - is your complete inability to find any real world existence for these so called pre-existing natural rights you believe in. that has been entirely consistent. No matter how many times I challenge you to produce where they actually existed and no matter how many t imes you are unable to come up with anything - you still hold fast and hard to your beliefs and never let reality in the way.
your opinion is not an answer based on anything other than your own belief system. As such, it is fairly irrelevant.
A word by reading of Article I Section 8 funds several clauses that can be employed to regulate firearms. I have provided them for you many many many times now.
What the hell?And why is that?
The first two are the most common usage. They apply perfectly and you have given us no reason not connected to political ideology or belief or simply outright denial why they do not apply.
Only if one insists on removing the first two first more common usage definitions, ignoring them for political reasons and focusing only on the third to produce a result that runs contrary to the common usage of the day.
That is an ideological and political position not based on the definition provided giving the most common usage of the day.
What the hell?
When you're trying to determine whether a word applies, you look through the various definitions to find the one that applies.
You don't dismiss it just because the first two do not apply.
Seriously, what the ****?
still diverting by trying to pretend the issue is whether natural rights exist
Why do you think Haymarket, no one criticizes my consistency or the honesty of my posts on this subject while your answers are constantly destroyed as being contradictory, evasive etc?
wrong, more dishonest twisting. YOU CAN read them to allow that if
1) you ignore the "exact language"
2) you ignore the plain meaning
3) you make up stuff that is not even HINTED in the language
4) you complete ignore the entire premise underlying the Constitution
5) you ignore the founders' main assumptions and beliefs
6) and most pathetically, you work backwards and use a system of interpretation that is completely opposite of how you interpret the 2A.
In other words, in over to use those clauses, you have to reject reality, reject an honest reading and make stuff up
and other than the commerce clause, no one in 80 years has pretended that the other clauses work
What the hell?
When you're trying to determine whether a word applies, you look through the various definitions to find the one that applies.
You don't dismiss it just because the first two do not apply.
Seriously, what the ****?
nope. All I have done is refer to the US Constitution as it is written.
To the situation in question, for ****s sake.I did just what you suggest. The first one applies perfectly.
then why are you pushing them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?