The felons from Jan 6 should never legally carry a gun again.

[LV426]

you would prefer a military dictatorship, then. got it.

That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, they couldn't protect us on 9/11, so giving them full control won't make their protection any better because we have no reason to believe they would.

You think the reason the military didn't protect us on 9/11 or 1/6 was because...they weren't dictators?

 

[LV426]

Do you understand the military wasn't sent to solve the problem until after 9/11?

They didn't solve any problem.

That's the point.

The military solution to 9/11 (and terrorism more broadly) did not protect this country or make it any safer.

 

[Into the Night]

what historical documentation from the founders do you have that stipulates 'well regulated' means government controlled?????

None. He is confusing 'regulation' with 'well regulated', and is taking phrases out of context.

 

[LV426]

Do you understand Bill Clinton was aware of the severe threat, especially since the WTC was already attacked on his watch, but never ordered the attack because he was concerned about his reputation?

WTF are you talking about?

Clinton wasn't President on 9/11, and Bush the Dumber was given myriad warnings about it for nine months.

When Clinton took action against OBL, all of you people accused him of wagging the dog.

So help me understand why you think our military protects us when 25 years ago, y'all were saying the exact opposite?

 

[Into the Night]

Just the plain meaning, that in order to access the right one must be a part of a well regulated militia.

WRONG. Go read the 2nd amendment again.

And the fact that even in the founders time, regulations were accepted as legal.

WRONG. You do not get to speak for the dead. The ONLY authoritative reference to the Constitution of the United States is the Constitution of the United States.

 

[LV426]

William Jefferson Clinton is a draft-dodging coward who didn't do his duty as POTUS because he put his needs over those of the nation.

Clinton warned Bush about OBL.

For nine months, Richard Clarke and dozens of other ex-Clinton and ex-NSA officials were sounding the alarms about Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

In August 2001, Bush received a PDB that literally warned of an impending attack by Al Qaeda using airplanes.

9/11 isn't on Clinton...it's on Bush the Dumber and our military.

 

[Into the Night]

The felons from Jan 6 should never legally carry a gun again.

But BLM rioters and looters and people who attack Police Stations ... should?

Nice demonstration of that paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

I never once claimed that it means ONLY government run and controlled. This is why I generally refuse to get into it with you, you pretend the opposing argument is different than it is, because that makes it easier to knock down. I guess it makes you feel victorious.

It is clear that those who wrote the Bill of Rights envisioned that towns and states could regulate "arms" such as muskets. It is also clear that most Americans of today believe that we can regulate flame throwers and Nuclear "Arms" and that these rights are certainly not inalienable.

WRONG. Contextomy fallacy.

No government can limit or ban any weapon of any kind. It doesn't matter if it's a musket, flame thrower (I know people that build them as a hobby and they love shooting them), or nuclear bomb.

You have the right to own it....to bear it...and to defend yourself, your loved ones, your property, your community, and your State with it.
You are also responsible for the usage and storage of it.

You are still attempting your contextomy fallacy. You are still attempting to speak for the dead. You can only speak for yourself. You cannot speak for the dead.

 

[Into the Night]

no person convicted of a felon can legally in case you didnt know that. of course its the democrats who are trying to restore felons rights or did you forget that

Even a felon has the right of self defense. The right is inherent.

What of the prisoner attacked by another prisoner IN PRISON? Does that prisoner so attacked have the right of self defense by any means?

Yes. No guard, government, or any other entity take away that right.

 

[Into the Night]

1) Again you mistated my claim, can you not read?

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that cannot read. You are deliberately attempting to cancel the 2nd amendment by using a phrase from the 2nd amendment. That in and of itself is a contextomy fallacy.

2) I do have evidence, there is never PROOF of such things, look the meaning of the two words.

Contextomy fallacy.

3) Do you believe that people should be allowed to have a nuke in their back yard?

Yes.

4) Should violent felons be allowed guns?

Guess what? You can't stop it. Violent felons have guns.

5) Should Mohamed Atta have been allowed to possess an AK (if he were to have lived) while he was in prison.

You can't stop it even in prison. Zip guns do exist in prison.

6) Should Richard Reid be allowed a Gun in prison?

You can't stop it.

7) What about John Hinkley, should he be allowed a gun?

You can't stop it.

8) Should a 4 year old be allowed to play with a flame thrower, because if the right is inalienable, you sure cant take that right from her.

Obviously you have never picked up or used a flame thrower. These suckers are heavy and hot. You need good protective equipment just to keep the operator(s) from being burned. I've shot a few. They are fun, but they are hot and require PPE to use.

A 4 year old has the right to defend himself by any means. It won't be by flame thrower. They can't handle the weapon(?). It is too heavy and too unwieldy. A gun? Again, too heavy, too complicated. A knife? Certainly. A 4 year old can handle most knives enough to defend themselves.

 

[Into the Night]

I do know the law,

You do not know the law. You do not recognize the Constitution of the United States nor any State constitution.

I did not ask what the law IS, I asked "should".

There is no 'should'.

 

[Into the Night]

I've noticed a recurring problem with both democrats and republicans when they are taken to task on their obvious misunderstanding of the constitution and the rights protected by it...........that is that they go to hyperbolic extremes as absolutes when they have no logical argument for their position.

They try. It breaks down for the reason's I've already discussed. The 2nd amendment does not list any weapon by type, by action, by brand name, by magazine size, by size or type of ammunition it may use, the length of any blade, or the form or content of any bomb. The right of self defense is inherent.

1. be clearer of your claims so people don't have to muddle through your vagueness

They can't. They can only try to take words or phrases out of context to cancel the rest.

2. provide your evidence so it can be investigated and/or disproved

None necessary. The Constitution of the United States is the only authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States. Congress cannot change it. The President cannot change it. The Supreme Court cannot change it. Only the owners of that document (the States) can change it.

3. the people are to be entitled to own any weapon that their government would use against them for tyrannical purposes

Bingo.

4. If they can't be trusted in public with a weapon, they can't be trusted in public

Bingo.

5. read the 5th Amendment again, and again. maybe you'll understand " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

This seems to be forgotten a lot. These idiots don't understand the Constitution is a package deal. They can't pick and choose words or phrases and discard the rest.

6. more hyperbole...............not worth answering or arguing this point with you

Again, this fails for the reasons I've already explained.

You stand on pretty solid ground here, sir. Thank you for helping to defend the Constitution.

 

[Cypress]

This is the problem I have with many "veterans"...people who chose to join the military, likely out of desperation because they had no employable skills or experience for the private sector.

So they end up taking the path of least resistance, and in doing so, think that because they chose that particular path, we should respect them moreso than anyone else...even people who chose similarly, but were in actual active combat and at risk.

Like Ashli Babbit...she wasn't some Intelligence officer...she was a coffee girl. She had a desk job. She never once fired her weapon. In fact, the only time she did was probably in Basic Training.

No sympathy here for that Ashli chick.

It is hard to argue against that maintaining a massive, peace time military as we have done for three decades post-cold war, amounts in some respects to a gigantic government-sponsored jobs program.

I support USA having a lean and muscular army and blue water navy. But Eisenhower was prescient in anticipating a self-perpetuating military industrial complex.

 

[Into the Night]

So we are only "entitled to own any weapons that the government would use against them for tyrannical purposes"?
So if a person is not to be trusted in public, then the right becomes alienable? I thought the right was inalienable? If its inalienable everyone in prison should be allowed to be armed, right?
So we can alienate people from their rights if we give them due process of law? That does not sound like inalienable, it sounds alienable to me....

You see, you make these silly and over braud claims when they suit you, but the second you point out how silly the over braud claims are, you run.

I've noticed that about you. You like to pick and choose individual words or phrases and take them out of context, using a false context to try to cancel an entirety.

This is fallacy, called a contextomy fallacy. It's like saying 2+2=4 BECAUSE 2+5=7.

 

[Into the Night]

You are the one claiming they were inalienable rights, then you support alienating people from those rights. Defend yourself...

He already has. So have I. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

So the rights are not inalienable? Are you saying the government can take away your right to bear arms under the 5th Amendment?

No, he isn't and neither do I. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Since you can't explain it and are obviously trying to justify murdering police with it, it's you who clearly do not understand it.

Besides, the Declaration of Independence was written before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Contextomy fallacy. You are hallucinating again.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes. The problem comes in with the analogy of "the right to swing my fist ends at the point of another person's nose".

No, it doesn't. The right of self defense is inherent.

Yes, I have an inalienable right to attack a tyrannical government. Does that give me the right to do was STY wants to do and Timothy McVeigh did? No, it does not.

McVeigh attacked a tyrannical government. You are not locked in paradox. Which is it, dude?

How many more people would have died on April 19th, 1995 is McVeigh had used a 10 kiloton nuke instead of a homemade fertilizer bomb?

Irrelevant "what if'.

Is there any doubt he would have used one if he could? That STY would use one if he had one?

Irrelevant 'what if'.

It is legal to own and use a nuclear bomb. No government can stop that.
You are also, of course, responsible for the usage and storage of that device.

 

[Into the Night]

The fact you lead with multiple insults means you are lying and vulnerable. You are a weak asshole who deserves to be in prison for your crimes.

Contrary to your beliefs, the Declaration of Independence is a founding document and remains part of our system of government. However, like your oath to the Constitution after leaving the service, it's not legally binding.


https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration
The Declaration of Independence states the principles on which our government, and our identity as Americans, are based. Unlike the other founding documents, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding, but it is powerful. Abraham Lincoln called it “a rebuke and a stumbling-block to tyranny and oppression.” It continues to inspire people around the world to fight for freedom and equality.

Irrelevance fallacies. Pivot fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

was there a gun law violation?.....

No.