What does it mean to INFRINGE upon the Right to Keep and Bear arms

[TurtleDude]

At this point, the baby seals are begging to be clubbed to death. It would be a welcome respite from this lunacy.

I hear some have sent telegrams to Tiger Wood's ex!!

 

[danielpalos]

what exactly is that now?

Why claim you have any understanding of this topic?

U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why claim you have any understanding of this topic?

rather than cite code-tell me what exactly is that group? where does it practice? where does it drill. We have the national guard-it become the federal militia only in what circumstances?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Most English teachers should be able to understand contracts.

Yes, if they're written in English.

 

[danielpalos]

rather than cite code-tell me what exactly is that group? where does it practice? where does it drill. We have the national guard-it become the federal militia only in what circumstances?

The point is about the Militia of the United States, not non sequiturs, which are usually considered fallacies.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, if they're written in English.

Yes, and it takes sufficient reading comprehension to not be considered incompetent.

 

[haymarket]

which militia?

the one composed of all the people

 

[TurtleDude]

the one composed of all the people

some people are not part of the militia. age especially

those people still have second amendment rights

 

[haymarket]

some people are not part of the militia. age especially

those people still have second amendment rights

like minors?

 

[danielpalos]

some people are not part of the militia. age especially

those people still have second amendment rights

Only a well regulated Militia is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller covers everyone else who is not connected with Militia service, well regulated.

 

[TurtleDude]

Only a well regulated Militia is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller covers everyone else who is not connected with Militia service, well regulated.

This repetitive nonsense establishes nothing.

 

[TurtleDude]

like minors?

minors cannot vote, cannot contract, cannot do lots of things

 

[haymarket]

minors cannot vote, cannot contract, cannot do lots of things

that is correct.

 

[TurtleDude]

that is correct.

buying guns seems to be a reasonable restriction as well. Now I would make 18 the age for any firearms purchase not 21 for Handguns but I don't find it unreasonable for the states to limit firearms purchases to adults. As noted earlier, this is not something the federal government has a proper role in

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes, and it takes sufficient reading comprehension to not be considered incompetent.

I'm pretty good at reading tortured English, but you're ability to write it has bested me. Congratulations.

 

[danielpalos]

This repetitive nonsense establishes nothing.

sure it does; it clearly gainsays the contention of those of the opposing view who have nothing but fallacy to offer in rebuttal.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm pretty good at reading tortured English, but you're ability to write it has bested me. Congratulations.

In other words, you really don't understand the Federalist Papers.

 

[TurtleDude]

sure it does; it clearly gainsays the contention of those of the opposing view who have nothing but fallacy to offer in rebuttal.

you haven't had any arguments of amy merit. You refuse to answer easy questions and your use of the English Language suggest you are being fed this stuff and you really don't understand it

 

[danielpalos]

I am not the one who has to change the subject and complain I don't understand what you are saying. Some of the brighter people on this forum know how to to ask questions for clarification.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am not the one who has to change the subject and complain I don't understand what you are saying. Some of the brighter people on this forum know how to to ask questions for clarification.

I don't see anyone who is intelligent agreeing with your nonsense. You have yet to make a rational argument and your evasions continue to prove what your real goals are.

 

[Dittohead not!]

sure it does; it clearly gainsays the contention of those of the opposing view who have nothing but fallacy to offer in rebuttal.

Only if repetition of a falsehood magically turns it into a truth.

How are you doing with making San Francisco a bastion of Republicanism?

 

[American]

Some people insist on being wrong while claiming to be on the right?

That would be you.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't see anyone who is intelligent agreeing with your nonsense. You have yet to make a rational argument and your evasions continue to prove what your real goals are.

That isn't saying much simply because those of your point of view resort to so many fallacies while claiming you are right. Instead of simply claiming what you do, why not provide a valid rebuttal, each and every time you want to contest some argument?

 

[danielpalos]

Only if repetition of a falsehood magically turns it into a truth.

How are you doing with making San Francisco a bastion of Republicanism?

I am only repeating our supreme law of the land; it is those of your point of view that habitually appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

I am a federalist, i really don't care why the republicans can't seem to muster up enough morals to bear true witness to their own republican doctrine.

 

[danielpalos]

That would be you.

No. It wouldn't, simply because I claim to be on the left, not the right.