I am tired of most pro-gun arguments

strawman

 

I've already demonstrated you have no idea what special pleading means.

you have no idea what special pleading means

 

This isn't a straw man argument, but a self-evident truth that you cannot refute.

It is a self-evident truth in our republic, that a well regulated militia may be called to execute the laws of the State or the Union, and that such service may require Persons specifically connected with militia service to secure and protect sensitive areas by infringing, denying, and disparaging the right to keep and bear Arms, to those Persons of the People who keep and bear Arms and who must follow State laws regarding gun control as civil Persons and citizens of that State because, only a well regulated militia is specifically exempted from State laws regarding gun control due to our Second Amendment simply because it is connected with militia service and as specifically enumerated in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

 

You are always welcome to actually prove your point with a valid argument, whenever you want.

 

nope, it's a strawman. I have never once made the argument you are trying to attribute to me. that is the very definition of a strawman.

strawman. I have never argued otherwise.

 

I've already refuted your argument of what the second amendment "merely" does. I have no obligation to address the arguments you keep making up and attributing to me.

 

You haven't refuted anything, since our Second Amendment clearly does what is specifically enumerated it does. Your only claim to refutation involves a ruling achieved in a vacuum of special pleading, that also, merely sacrifices the end to the means, contrary to the "dictates of plain reason and legal axioms".

 

of course I've refuted your argument. I've cited supreme court precedent, and you keep inventing strawmen.

your argument remains refuted.

 

In cases of Constitutional law, precedence is not always binding.

 

Your argument remains refuted

 

Up to your old tricks and games again, are you mr. rahl?

LINKS and SOURCES, mr. rahl, LINKS and SOURCES.

 

Up to your old tricks and games again, are you mr. rahl?

LINKS and SOURCES, mr. rahl, LINKS and SOURCES.

 

follow the thread.

danieapolis, like you, pretends that his argument hasn't been refuted. I've done so numerous times citing supreme court precedent.

 

Oh...I was unaware of that, Sir. My Bad.

I did NOT read the posts in this thread.

I just saw your quote, "I already refuted it," and thought it was funny, remembering the numerous times you posted that same statement.

My apologies, rahl.

danielpalos,

Sir, you stand corrected and refuted.

The individual right to bear arms is indeed within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, and it most certainly stands and is the law of the land, even today, NOT just back then.

And, NO, it's NOT about hunting. The 2nd Amendment is to keep the government in check, for Militia to ensure and preserve the Freedom, Liberty, and Security of the free States, combating tyranny, and for self defense. It is NOT just for Military and Law Enforcement.

Anti-gun socialists and fascists will do and say whatever they can to try to ban the 2nd Amendment, even giving false and wrong history and information.

Rahl, I got your back on this one, Brother.

 

you simply refuse to recognize a self-evident Truth under the United States.

well regulated militias are already exempted from State laws regarding gun control simply because of affiliation with a well regulated militia of the United States.

it is only gun lovers who claim to love their guns as forms of private property which may be in the class termed, Arms, at the same time, who refuse to love their republic enough and simply muster to receive the exemption they would like, by becoming well regulated and entitled to that character as civil persons in our republic.

 

strawman and repetition of previously refuted argument.

you really need to put down the shovel.

 

We trust then you will be satisfied to have all the other rights under the constitution be collective rights.

 

You can't refute my reasoning with special pleading. Your very own form of "moral absolutism" under our system of common law, in the same breath, only claims that a well regulated militia is exempted from State laws regarding gun control and that persons unconnected with militia are not, by tradition.

 

I am not sure what you are referring to. I am only advocating we bear true witness to the wisdom, specifically enumerated by our Founding Fathers.

It is a self-evident truth, that only individual persons of the People who are entitled to the character of a well regulated militia are specifically exempted from State laws regarding gun control that are enacted by the elected representatives of the people of that same State, and for those persons who are unconnected with militia service.

 

Honestly I feel like we are entering a period where there is great potential for economic and social instability. If God forbid there was a situation where the power grid went offline and normal supply shipments were disrupted I would not feel comfortable without a firearm of some sort. I know, some might say its a long shot and to those people I would say, is it at all conducive to a healthy economy to have a total derivatives market that is 40 times the size of our GDP? Derivatives are nothing, literally nothing at all and they were at the heart of the last economic crisis. I know this is about guns but in my view, guns will become one of the most important commodities very soon.

 

which is why I instead refuted it with US supreme court precedent.

strawman

 

strawman

 

How is it is a strawman if I am paraphrasing a relatively recent, Supreme Court ruling, that claims to secure that very thing?

 

because you are inventing arguments I never made and attributing them to me. that is the definition of a strawman.

 

I am merely paraphrasing your line of reasoning, without a vacuum of special pleading. It is no wonder you don't recognize it.