Restrictions on rights.

of course they are. "keep and bear"

- - - Updated - - -

you don't know what special pleading means

 

Keep and bear is not the same as acquire and possess, but for special pleading.

 

of course they are.

you don't know what special pleading means

 

Can you explain by what commutation process, the terms "acquire" and "possess" may become "keep and bear"?

 

aked and answered 100 times in this thread

 

You missed the point, as usual, with your special pleading.

Can you explain by what commutation process, the terms "acquire" and "possess" may become "keep and bear"?

 

you don't know what special pleading mean.

asked and answered 100 times in this thread

 

So, why not post it for all to see, since you have so much practice?

 

because your games are pathetic and don't fool anyone. you've been refuted at every turn. all your stupidity warrants is a simple nope, or reminder that you remain refuted.

 

Simply repeating a fallacy is still only repeating a fallacy, even if some claim it is the truth or merely jump on the band wagon due to a private profit motive, if not a Cause.

None of the rulings I have read explain that commutation process.

 

you remain refuted.

 

You are welcome to come up with a valid line of reasoning whenever you want.

 

directly refuted you via supreme court precedent

 

That precedent didn't explain what process commutes "keep and bear" into "acquire" and "possess".

 

..don't acknowlege his post with a reply. Seriously......he'll go away if no one answers his posts

 

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.

 

​

I directly refuted you via supreme court precedent.

You're pathetic, and you aren't fooling anyone

 

I agree, every American should have the right to protect their home and family (I do not care if they are on anti-depressants or committed a crime as a child)

where it gets iffy is where should Americans go armed? planes, trains, schools, court rooms, amusement parks, to work? should we have limits (I think most agree with some limits)

.

 

Appealing to ignorance regarding our supreme law of the land is not allowed.

 

You don't know what appealing to ignorance means. I've destroyed your argument on wha the supreme law of the land is via supreme court precedent.

You lost

 

Appealing to ignorance means you don't have a valid argument to expound on your line of reasoning as to how the specifically enumerated terms in our Second Amendment, "keep and bear" may experience commutation to the non-specifically enumerated terms "acquire" or "possess", which are usually found in our State Constitutions and available via Due Process to Individual persons in our republic who are specifically, unconnected with militia service.

 

Where should Americans go armed? Planes? Unnecessary at this point because airport security and air marshals are doing the job.
Court rooms? Again unnecessary because of current security.
Trains, schools, amusement parks, work, etc? Why not? Criminals and the mentally ill bent on destruction do and with impunity I might add.
Carrying a firearm does not make us police officers and is not intended to. Carrying a firearm says that we take to ourselves the responsibility and the right to protect ourselves and ours and in rare extreme cases the lives of others.

 

A well regulated militia is specifically enumerated as being necessary to the security of a free State; not standing armies for our exorbitantly expensive, wars on abstractions.

 

you don't know what appealing to ignorance means.

you've been directly refuted via supreme court precedent.

 

dude, how difficult can it be to simply cut and paste the arguments that explain the commutation process of specifically enumerated words on formerly blank pieces of paper?