5 people shot dead in one bloody New York night

Your English comprehension seems to be very poor.

 

Your vinyl is scratched.

Thanks again for your help exposing the weaknesses of your position.

 

You do not understand much about the constitution or how an amendment works. I have explained it to you several times already but you don't get it. Naturally, I can only assume it is a question of English comprehension that is at fault.

 

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. If you go back and read our correspondence you will find you have not explained anything. All you did was make erroneous statements about amendments which I corrected. Since then all you have done is repeat your comprehension line. Please go back and read our posts.

 

I have explained to you the correlation between the constitution and the process of "amending" it but you continue asking me the same question like a broken record. If it is not a problem with English comprehension then the problem is much worse than even that.

 

No, I’ve asked you multiple questions having no relation to amending the Constitution. They remain unanswered. The only statements you made on the Constitution and amendments were demonstrated to be factually incorrect. This is succeeding beyond my most sanguine expectations. We are rounding the last turn and looking down the home stretch...

 

I have answered multiple times.

My answers remain ignored.

What I told you is the truth.

I suppose that you can not handle the truth ...... or as I said earlier it is a problem with English comprehension. If I have been speaking over your head I assure you that it is NOT intentional. I am trying to be your friend and help you to understand the fundamental principles of the Constitution and its amendments.

 

Congrats. You’ve moved to the ignore list and have been reported for altering my quotes and for name calling. You won't last long around here with your style.

Btw, here’s the figures on murders, you’ll notice that murders by hands and feet outnumber murders by rifles. By a couple hundred.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

 

Here is our entire correspondence on the Constitution and amendments. I’ve quoted entire posts to avoid selective editing. Passages dealing with the Constitution are underlined. Questions I’ve asked that remain unanswered are in bold text.

.
Unless you are posting in a part of the forum not accessible to myself and other PF members, your claim of explaining the Constitution and amendments is incorrect. As is your claim you’ve answered my questions. I’ll ask the most important question again. If you lived in the United States of America would you kill people with a firearm?

We are now speeding down the home stretch.

 

This whole post proves exactly what I have said .... that you do not understand the fundamentals of the Constitution and you particularly do not understand the function of amending it.

 

The funny thing is you make claims you can’t back up. You say I’m in error but provide no specifics or alternative opinion or fact. All the corrections of errors have been my correction of yours. Is article five of the Constitution not what we look to for the process of amending said Constitution? That’s what I’ve referenced.

If you expect to make the finish line at all you need to start putting up facts instead of empty, baseless allegations. It would be interesting if you could come up with something more intellectually substantive than “you don’t understand “, “you have a problem with English comprehension”, etc. Point out my errors. Use facts like I did in pointing out your errors. Try to score a few points for your side of the argument.

 

The definition of AMENDMENT speaks for itself:
A minor change or addition.
synonyms: revision, alteration, change, modification, adaptation, adjustment;
edit, editing, rewrite, rewriting, redraft, redrafting, recasting, rephrasing, rewording, reworking, reform;
update, revamp, reshaping.

Understanding the function of an Amendment is not a difficult thing to comprehend as long as your English is up to the task. Otherwise, you are out of luck. Your first problem is that you do not understand that an Amendment is not UNamendable.

INFRINGE means:

1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
   synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach, commit a breach of, disobey, defy, flout.
   
   
2. act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
   "such widespread surveillance could infringe personal liberties"
   synonyms: undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise

This too is not difficult to understand if your English is sufficient. Your second problem is understanding that this does not establish an "unamendable" Constitution. it simply means that infringing upon the context is illegal as long as the context within applies.

 

I’ve never claimed the Constitution can’t be amended or amendments can’t be changed or repealed by further amendments. You are making things up. Please quote where I’ve said that. In fact I’ve stated the opposite quite clearly when I said the people of the US can do away with the 2A anytime they like.

In other threads I’ve extensively used the eighteenth and twenty-first amendments as shining examples of the consequences of proposals like yours. They are great models for understanding the process and realities of amending the Constitution. You should study them. You may be enlightened.

Just out of curiosity, what is your fascination with English comprehension? It’s a cute and clever threading of the PF rules loophole on ad hominem, but a little odd in its flirtation with obsession.

 

All you have to do is R-E-A-D and you will know:
1. What I have said on the subject.
2. What a Constitution, an Amendment and Infringement are.
3. And that I have been right the whole time.

This why I stress English comprehension as being the A to Z in realizing the significance of the above. You must both read and understand ... otherwise, you (or anyone) will never amount to anything on any given subject. But this ought to be obvious to all of us.

 

The only things you’ve said on the subject were demonstrated to be untrue or baseless allegations you still haven’t backed up. Please quote where I’ve said anything in error on the Constitution or amendments. If you can’t quote me and offer something substantial to show I’m in error you are simply emphasizing the irrationality of the anti gun movement. I’m fine with that. In fact it’s why I’m still engaged with you.

When you claimed the second amendment was a Johnny come lately addition and ignored the correction you seriously damaged the credibility of the anti firearms narrative. Why? Because you demonstrated you are willing to pursue a policy even if it’s based on false premise and blatant misrepresentation of the truth. Instead of re examining your position or trying a different argument based on substance you went straight to false accusations against me you can not back up with quotes. If you truly care about firearm deaths it’s time to prove it with actions more substantial than baseless allegations and demonstrably false assertions on the Constitution. Quote my errors. Do it for the children....

 

I am sorry that your English comprehension is insufficient and that you haven't got the fundamental knowledge to further your understanding. I mean, seriously, it's all there in the definition if you would just take the time to read it and apply basic English grammar and vocabulary. But I guess it's not your fault and I can't save EVERYONE so I'm not going to lament over it. Good luck!

 

Again, I accept your surrender and thank you for helping educate the observers on the dangers of basing policies on untruths and baseless, unsubstantiated accusations.

For what it’s worth, if English is not your native tongue I’d like to complement you on your command of the language. It’s been fun. Good luck to you as well.