Gun Control: Criminals with Guns

No actually, you are the one who is confused. Unless you're making the claim that Samuel Adams was ignorant and confused.

 

No, you are. It must be true simply because I wrote it and I am the one resorting to the fewest fallacies. You are confusing, as a fallacy of composition and false Cause, rights in private property with the right of well regulated Militias to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union; as opposed to just themselves as Individuals. If you don't understand that, I must be right.

 

I'm not interested in your opinion on the subject. I'm well aware of what your ignorant, misinformed, blatantly false interpretation of the Second Amendment is.

My point is that the Founding Fathers said you're lying through your teeth and that people like yourself should never be allowed to construe the constitution to stop the people from keeping their own guns.

Please explain Samuel Adams statement here:

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

 

Please stop wasting my time.

 

When the radical left figures out a way to get guns away from criminals totally, then come and talk to me about mine.

 

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws:

The Purpose and Intent is in the first clause, not the second clause.

 

Well regulated Militias are what is expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State. When gun lovers start loving their States and our republic enough to muster, then come talk to me about not needing any laws meant for persons who are considered specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.

 

Nobody is appealing to ignorance. Your use of that phrase shows me you're attempting to use phrases that you don't know the meaning of in an attempt to make yourself look like you know what you're talking about.

Furthermore, you don't justify your position, neither do you address the argument being made. You completely ignore the evidence that you don't like and you are utterly incapable of explaining the texts which contradict your absurd position.

 

Dude, what part of there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws do you not understand?

There is no evidence external to the Intent and Purpose, specifically enumerated in our supreme law of the land.

It merely takes a clue and a Cause to understand the difference.

 

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. All you're doing is claiming that your interpretation must be valid. And you're doing so over and over and over and over again.

I'm asserting that there is evidence that our Founding Fathers asserted that your interpretation is false. I provided evidence for that claim. Rather than address that evidence you simply claimed... again... that your interpretation must be valid.

That's not a cogent argument for why your interpretation is more valid than the Founding Fathers.... dude.

 

It has been irrefutably shown, over and over again, and the Founders and the SCOTUS agree, danielpalos is twisting and/or misinterpreting everything to do with the 2A, from the phraseology, all the way to the grammar, and the very definition of the words written by the founders, to suit his own agenda. I have him on ignore, you should too.

Besides, none of these guys agree with him, why should anyone else?

 

Dude, the Intent and Purpose of our Second Article of Amendment is in the first clause, not the second clause.

 

Lame. You made an outlandish claim then gave three links that did not support your claim. That isn't "evidence". That is wasting people's time, just like Bow to the Robots said.

 

Appeals to ignorance are just that. The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.

Even the Judicature acknowledges that legal fact:

the rest is based on appeal to authority since the Supreme Court is not an authority on English grammar and usage or known to resort to the fewest fallacies in the name of seeking sublime Truth (value), but merely legal language and the law.

The means must give way to the Intent and Purpose simply because the Means must be sacrifed to the End. The Intent and Purpose is the End for which the Means must be sacrificed.

- - - Updated - - -

It merely takes a clue and a Cause to understand the concepts.

 

Both you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this thread.

 

Dude... Brahhhhh.... I'm not interested in your opinion. I want you to explain Samuel Adams' comment to me:

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

 

Samuel Adams is irrelevant; there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws. Our Second Amendment is part of our supreme law of the land. The Intent and Purpose is expressly declared. The second clause must be sacrificed to the first clause and End.

 

So our Founding Fathers, the ones who wrote the constitution are irrelevant in regards to how it should be interpreted?

So let me make sure I understand... Your interpretation is more correct than the interpretation of the people who wrote the constitution?

 

Here is the correct interpretation to use regarding our supreme law of the land:

 

Wait a minute. So the Federalist... written by those founding fathers whose interpretation you JUST rejected is now the basis for your claim?

(*)(*)(*)(*) of here

 

Evidence of what? Your "evidence" does not address your preposterous claim that the date of our death is determined at birth.

 

The point is that technology changes. I think the founders could have foreseen assault rifles long before they would have foreseen cell phones. After all, volley firing guns had been made, as had the first repeating rifles.

 

..............wait for it............wait for it

 

this is what happens when people show you that you are wrong. You run away and say, "We'll have to agree to disagree.".... like that wins anything or convinces anyone you are even close to being right....
So why are you even in this debate. Posts like this ( # 31) are unconvincing and lack sincerity. You statement of defeat is all we need and you give it to us all the time.