R
Robostyle
Well-known member
Except for voter IDs and anchor babies, apparently.
the jerkoff supreme court upholds birthright citizenship. wuuuut bullshit
Except for voter IDs and anchor babies, apparently.
F
Findthetone1
Well-known member
Dude, you're so ridiculous I can't help but laugh at you and call your bullshit out.
R
Robostyle
Well-known member
You're the only one who thinks this.
MadAsAHatter
Well-known member
So you're solution to infringing on rights is more infringement? Got it.
This is about the most ridiculous argument you can make and proves you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
First off there are other elements/components to "nukes" that aren't legal to own. Plutonium and uranium for example. Same with any other ridiculous example you can come up with. The other folly of this argument is it doesn't deal with infringing on rights. It's about the definition of and what constitutes arms as defined by the 2A. Unfortunately it's ill defined and depending on who you ask can range from a rock to high grade military weaponry. Either way it's not a argument that addresses infringement.
F
Findthetone1
Well-known member
Dude is a legend in his own soy riddled mind.
Smug libtards that think they know sooo much are quite entertaining.
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
Living document is liberal bullshit. It’s only designed to be changed via constitutional convention. If it were able to be changed without amending the constitution the 2A would have been changed under any of the three democratic presidential terms that enjoyed control of both congressional chambers since 1992.
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
Who’s wasting everyone’s time with stupid fucking bullshit again ?
Why not stop with the biased spin bullshit dude. Look at Roe v Wade and what had to happen to get that back to the states. And that was never even in the constitution it was just ruled to be covered under the 14th amendment. You know god damn well that the NRA and other gun rights groups have been trying to get the NFA tossed since it was enacted. You also know that democrats would have changed or eliminated the 2A if it was a living document designed to be changed with the times. Thats complete bullshit. The entire document was designed specifically NOT to be changed by the whims of popular opinion. It’s really hard to change on purpose. And you absolutely know that. Again, I am deferring to you not being a fucking retard because if you didn’t know that you would definitely be a retard.
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
Constitutional amendment or Supreme Court ruling, those are the only two things that can alter the understanding or definition of specific amendments in the BOR. Period.
MadAsAHatter
Well-known member
JamesTiberiusKirk
Well-known member
My point is your argument is based on a fallacy. IOW, try again please. And stop moving the goal posts. Someone said "shall not" I showed that was a false premise. End of discussion.So you're solution to infringing on rights is more infringement? Got it.
This is about the most ridiculous argument you can make and proves you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
First off there are other elements/components to "nukes" that aren't legal to own. Plutonium and uranium for example. Same with any other ridiculous example you can come up with. The other folly of this argument is it doesn't deal with infringing on rights. It's about the definition of and what constitutes arms as defined by the 2A. Unfortunately it's ill defined and depending on who you ask can range from a rock to high grade military weaponry. Either way it's not a argument that addresses infringement.
Here's an example of a statement with a fallacy at its base. "The moon is made of green cheese, so how do we get there to harvest it?". Do I need to explain further that any discussion of this statement is a waste of time? I think not.
Ok, let's take your point about what is defined by 2A as "arms". What were arms at the time? A black power musket. And a dueling pistol. I'm no 2A scholar but I'm pretty sure cannons weren't meant to be included. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure I'm not. So, taken literally only muskets and black power ball pistols are allowed. Which is ridiculous. "Living document". Meant to be updated.
But I'm tired of repeating myself as your tired of hearing me do it.
F
Findthetone1
Well-known member
You're no scholar period. You, and anybody else has ZERO idea what they meant by the term arms. They could have meant anything and everything that would be necessary to stand against a tyrannical government. Your smug assumptions are just that, assumptions, again, to pad your inflated ego and false sense of self worth.
What's next? The arms in the 2nd Amendment pertained to hunting? Bitch, please.
MadAsAHatter
Well-known member
I don't see how addressing something you brought up multiple times is moving goalposts. I'm not going to bother wasting my time discussing this with you anyway; especially when you keep bringing up these rediculious "arguments". I said my point and moving on.
Though speaking of moving goalposts, I do want to bring something else up. What's with this "Living Document" thing? Talk about moving goalposts. That's moving the entire stadium. I've not heard anyone use this term until like 2 weeks or so ago. Now damn near every single lib talking head and politician is using the phrase. And here JTK is uing it too. It's almost like all the libtards got their official talking point at the same time.
R
Robostyle
Well-known member
70 Mach 1
Well-known member
First im hearing about this.
Why aren't there any riots in the streets for the poor white guy.
Wheres Al Sharpton leading the million man march.
Surely if a white lady blew away a black guy it would be headline news 24/7
Why aren't there any riots in the streets for the poor white guy.
Wheres Al Sharpton leading the million man march.
Surely if a white lady blew away a black guy it would be headline news 24/7
JamesTiberiusKirk
Well-known member
You think you're rebutting me. You're actually agreeing with me. Like I said, "living document" because no one knows what arms meant and what it would come to mean. It was written open ended because (I repeat myself because you don't seem to be able to absorb or understand) LIVING FUCKING DOCUMENT. Meant to be updated and changed as needed.
How fucking hard is that to under-fucking-stand?!?!?
Don't reply until you can absorb that simple fucking concept. Jesus H Chainsaw Juggling Christ.
70 Mach 1
Well-known member
R
Robostyle
Well-known member
He should have retreated. I know i would have.
NoHassle
Well-known member
Sorry to burst your bubble but our constitution is a rewrite of the Magna Carta which in fact was a living document that evolved with the times...for better or for worse. Absolutes would make the document irrelevant as time and society marched forward. I have a foot in both camps with this approach, however, it was a living document none the less.
The original 1215 Magna Carta was an immediate failure, annulled by the Pope within weeks of being sealed. However, it was resurrected and evolved into a foundational living legal document through repeated reissues by later English kings. Its enduring legacy formed the basis for modern democratic laws and human rights. [1, 2, 3]
@JamesTiberiusKirk
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
You are definitely wrong. And cannons are and always have been legal to own.
Speaking of fallacy, apply the retarded "Muskets only" approach to the 1st amendment. It's just more anti-gun made up bullshit disputed by reams of correspondence from the actual authors and signers of the document.
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
Another retarded argument. If they fucking meant it to mirror the Magna Carta they would have just used the Magna Carta. Or more likely they would have just said fuck it and went back to England.
You get that bullshit from the same place you got the bit about the Minsk accords ?
