I am tired of most pro-gun arguments

nonsense. my line of reasoning has remained constant, and directly refuted your assertion of what the second amendment "merely" does.

you've lost that argument, and are inventing strawmen and attributing them to me. it's pathetic and doesn't fool anyone.

 

How have I lost that argument, when a Supreme Court ruling also supports my contention and not your contention regarding only a well regulated militia being exempted from State laws regarding gun control for those persons not entitled or weapons qualified, to be entitled to the "character of a well regulate militia", by Tradition.

 

because that argument is a strawman. your original claim was what the second amendment "merely" does. The second amemdment doesn't "merely" exempt a well regulated militian from state gun control laws in favor of federal laws. the second amendments meaning, as it pertains to the individual, is that the individuals right to keep and bear arms is in no way dependant upon or tied to any militia.

your argument remains refuted. I will continue to point out the strawmen you keep inventing

 

Only in your vacuum of special pleading, since that same ruling also claimed that persons unconnected with militia services can be denied and disparaged in their keeping and bearing of Arms in public, by tradition.

 

repitition of refuted argument, and a strawman.

you're pathetic

 

Why am I not surprised you don't even recognize the ruling you are referring to.

Only a well regulated militia (of the United States) is specifically exempted from any doubt being cast in their direction regarding the traditional police power of a State, and their inalienable and indefeasible and individual and civil right to keep and bear Arms; regardless of State laws for civil persons, unconnected with militia service.

 

Strawman

 

ah yes the "call everything a strawman" strategy; very much like the "ad hom fallacy fallacy" strategy.

Its easier to just say "lol" that way there is an impression of superior wisdom while giving nothing away, like a lack of substance or confusion about when to use words.

 

I am not surprised that the "right" runs out of logic and reason, on potentially for profit basis, as often as they do.

 

Who gets to be the determiner of 'intolerably despotic'? You might as well just say that the DofI advocates revolution by any crackpot who didn't get his afternoon nap.

 

I'd suggest actually reading the thread, and exchanges between this poster and myself. Then you would see the actual strawmen being invented by danielpalos.

 

I've already refuted your argument. I haven't run out of anyting. having had your argument refuted, you have resorted to strawmen for the past few months. I am under no obligation to address or refute arguments you make up and attribute to me.

 

You haven't refuted anything; my assertion still stands that only a well regulated militia is exempted from State laws regarding gun control for civil persons unconnected with militia service. Can you cite where that is not the case in our republic? Even DC V. Heller affirmed that line of reasoning.

 

of course I have. your assertion was what the second amendment "merely" did. I refuted that with supreme court precedent. You then began a string of strawmen which I have no obligation to refute, since I never argued them.

strawman

 

It isn't a straw man since it is my position on the matter and legal fact in our republic.

 

it is a strawman because I've never made an argument to the contrary. Your original position was that is what the second amendment "merely" does. Which I refuted.

 

" straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I am not engaging in a straw man argument since it is my position even the ruling you cite supports my contention regarding well regulated militias being exempt from State laws regarding gun control while civil persons unconnected with militia service are not.

 

of course you're engaging in a strawman. Your original argument was about what the second amendment "merely" does. I refuted that with supreme court precedent. You have been going around in circles trying to get me to defend a position I've never held. You made up an argument and attributed it to me. that is called a strawman argument.

I have never once argued otherwise. but your position is that this is all the second amendment does, which I directly refuted.

 

Your "refutation" is not supported by DC v. Heller, since it supports my contention that only a well regulated militia is exempted from State laws regarding gun control, that are meant for civil persons unconnected with militia service.

In my opinion, the real issue is, was it both necessary and proper to render alienable and defensible, that which is specifically enumerated as inalienable and indefeasible, without just compensation; to engage in forms of Prohibition, without the expressly delegated power to do so.

 

of course it's supported............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller.

The bolded portion of your post is the strawman.

 

That same ruling declared that the Second Amendment, specifically and by Tradition, does not include those Individual Persons who are unconnected with militia service.

Only a well regulated militia of the United States is specifically exempted from the traditional police power of a State.

 

that ruling specifically included those not connected with militia service. the supreme court held that the second amendments meaning, as it pertains to the individual, is that the individuals right to keep and bear arms is in no way dependant upon nor connected to any militia. this is the law of the land in all 50 states.

strawman

 

I already know that the privilege and immunity to acquire, possess, keep, and bear forms of private property which may include Arms, is already secured in State Constitutions; due process applies.

The Second Amendment specifically enumerates what is Necessary to the security and presumably domestic tranquility, of a free State, and therefore, exempt from State laws regarding gun control that exist for every other Person who keeps and bears Arms, but is unconnected with militia service.

Here is one example of that State's right in practice:

Only a well regulated militia is exempted from the traditional police power of the several States, especially when called to federal service.

 

nobody is talking about forms of private property. I'm talking specifically about arms, which the individual has a right to keep and bear, totally unconnected with any militia service, via the second amendment. your argument is refuted.

strawman.

strawman.

 

Rights in private property are usually declared inalienable or indefeasible in State Constitutions.

Simply claiming a straw man argument is no substitute for an actual rebuttal that actually refutes any of my contentions.