Discussion pertaining to the militia act of 1792

He is not a citizen or even resident of the US. His opinion should be noted in that context

 

Which is what I am doing by exposing HIS ironic projection of his own abysmal lack of subject matter knowledge onto others.

Also worth noting that he has never challenged you when you state that he is neither a citizen nor even a US resident.

That tells me all I need to know.

Thank you, I will bear that in mind for the future.

 

I ignore him. You decide for yourself the best course of action

 

I have been considering that course of action given the tedium of the fallacies being posted.

 

The one who constantly screams "NRA gun culture of death!" with absolutely zero evidence to support such an inflammatory statement, has absolutely no credibility in determining what statements are fallacies, and which are not.

 

Kneejerk denialism duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.

Let's just SUMMARIZE what has happened in this thread to date!

The OP has FAILED miserably to substantiate the bogus allegations in the OP itself.

The OP has FAILED miserably to substantiate the bogus allegations regarding the constitutionality of the Law of the Land.

That is TWO strikes and now the OP wants to STRIKE OUT on the NRA again?

On the positive side the OP is CONSISTENT even if it means being consistently WRONG!

 

Except it was not an allegation, but rather a discussion of analogies between modern and historic times in the united states. And the founding fathers did specify that each member of the militia should possess sufficient ammunition for eight minutes of uninterrupted, continuous fire. Applies to modern day analogs and accounting for advancements in technology, such a standard would translate into at least four hundred and eighty rounds of ammunition.

Have various "laws of the land" been ruled as unconstitutional over the centuries for violating the united states constitution?

If so, nothing more needs to be proven.

The search feature on the site still functions, and brings up the old posts of various members, especially when one knows what key words to look for.

 

My response was IN CONTEXT to my prior post but since you have reported my post where exactly does it stipulate in the PF Rules that I am required to respond to every single instance of denialism given that I have already done so previously?

 

Where it states that if one does not wish to discuss a particular topic, they should simply stay out of the thread.

 

Then why aren't you doing so given that you have not demonstrated any intention to provide substantiation for your bogus allegations on this topic?

Or should I just report all of your posts where you abjectly FAIL to provide any credible substance whatsoever?

 

If such is believed necessary, feel free to do so. By all means, flood the report feature with potentially bogus and baseless allegations, and let the metaphorical chips fall where they may.

 

Why would I lower myself to emulating what you are already doing?

 

Such a dismissive attitude is what ultimately allowed Nikolas Cruz to commit a school shooting.

 

Yet another FACTLESS load of bovine excrement that you are utterly incapable of substantiating.

 

It's like banging your head against the wall.

It feels good when you stop

 

The FBI was notified about Nikolas Cruz going on social media and threatening to commit a school shooting months before the incident ever took place. The FBI refused, outright refused, to even investigate the matter. As a result, numerous individuals were murdered.

Such is the result of dismissive attitudes on the part of those who see a problem, but decide it is not their problem to deal with.

 

Asinine STRAWMAN ignored for derogatory reasons.

 

Only one with no legitimacy in their presence, would consider it derogatory to point out a dismissive attitude.

 

Can't stop your ironic PROJECTING, can you?

 

Do be sure to inform others of what there is a determined effort to contribute something more than the constant screaming of "ironic projection" and emoticons in absence of a legitimate response.

 

Don't forget to send out PM's to everyone when you eventually manage to come up with your very first "legitimate response" because they are very notable by their ABSENCE.

 

Outside of the member Vegas Giants, no individual present in the ongoing discussion has actually agreed with anything that has been presented on the part of yourself.

 

Pathetic "appeal to authority" FALLACY all you have left to post now?

Sad!

 

I am going to agree with this^^^^^ ROFLOL. Only having Vegas agree with you is going to make you look bad.

Rich

 

The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution agree with me so I am not in the least bit worried.