Infringement

[domer76]

Rights are "INALIENABLE." any gun law without the validation of an amendment to the Constitution therefore is a violation of "INALIENABLE" constitutional rights and an invalid unconstitutional law, regardless of what any court decision says. Honest folks of just principles & integrity, know this full well. "An armed people are a free people."

Every right is alienable, nitwit. Deal with it.

Are you saying the people in the UK or Japan aren’t free? Better write a letter and let them know.

[Into the Night]

As long as they are in a well-regulated militia.

Militias are not a requirement. The 2nd amendment discusses TWO rights, not one.

1) The right of a free State to defend itself by forming militias. Several States currently have active militias. This protects the States from a rogue federal government.
2) The right of a person to defend himself by bearing arms. That means buying, owning, and using guns as well as any other type of arm. This protects the individual from a rogue State or federal government, as well as from wild animals, pests, criminals, etc.

The Constitution does not grant these rights. These rights are inherently a right of Man simply because he is a living breathing thing. States are made up of individuals.

[Into the Night]

Thanks for proving my point. What you just admitted was that you DON’T have the right to carry any weapon, any time and anywhere.

Dolt.

You have the right to carry your gun anywhere, anytime, subject to property laws, and even the effect of those laws are limited.

[domer76]

You have the right to carry your gun anywhere, anytime, subject to property laws, and even the effect of those laws are limited.

Yep. Thanks for proving my point that you don’t have the right to carry any gun, anytime, anywhere. Just like Scalia told you in Heller.

“Infringed” That just frosts your barrel stroking ass, doesn’t it?

Flounder on, dimwit.

[Into the Night]

You have the right to carry your gun anywhere, anytime, subject to property laws, and even the effect of those laws are limited.

That is not infringement. That is two rights being balanced. You have the right to own property too. You have also a certain right to ban guns on your property if you choose to do so. That doesn't apply to all cases, however.

[domer76]

So far nobody has been able to post a gun control law that does not limit or undermine one's right to bear arms.

So far, you have demonstrated your ignorance of what laws are for.

Loser.

[domer76]

You have the right to carry your gun anywhere, anytime, subject to property laws, and even the effect of those laws are limited.

That is not infringement. That is two rights being balanced. You have the right to own property too. You have also a certain right to ban guns on your property if you choose to do so. That doesn't apply to all cases, however.

Infringe means to limit. Everywhere you are prohibited from obtaining a certain weapon or prohibited from carrying it is an infringement.

Why is English so difficult for you?

Here, let me quote Scalia in Heller again. Choke on it, moron.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in thbopinione historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”

[domer76]

You have the right to carry your gun anywhere, anytime, subject to property laws, and even the effect of those laws are limited.

That is not infringement. That is two rights being balanced. You have the right to own property too. You have also a certain right to ban guns on your property if you choose to do so. That doesn't apply to all cases, however.

“Subject to”

You keep proving my point. Over and over.

[Into the Night]

Infringe means to limit.

WRONG. To infringe means to reduce the right to self defense by government passing laws that directly do so.

Everywhere you are prohibited from obtaining a certain weapon or prohibited from carrying it is an infringement.

WRONG. People have a right to their property. That is not infringement by government.

Why is English so difficult for you?
...deleted mindless chanting...

Inversion fallacy.

[domer76]

WRONG. To infringe means to reduce the right to self defense by government passing laws that directly do so.

WRONG. People have a right to their property. That is not infringement by government.

Inversion fallacy.

Infringe has no connotation to self defense. Did Mommy skip English in homeschool.

People do not have a right to any gun, any place, any time. Try to educate yourself, moron.

You don’t have a fucking clue what inversion fallacy is.

Fucking fool.

[Into the Night]

Infringe has no connotation to self defense.

The way you are using it does.

Did Mommy skip English in homeschool.

No, you just can't stay on topic and you keep losing context.

People do not have a right to any gun, any place, any time. Try to educate yourself, moron.

Yes they do.

You don’t have a fucking clue what inversion fallacy is.

An inversion fallacy is projecting an argument that applies to you on to others. This is a type of false equivalence fallacy, and is sometimes referred to simply as 'projection'.

[domer76]

The way you are using it does.

No, you just can't stay on topic and you keep losing context.

Yes they do.

An inversion fallacy is projecting an argument that applies to you on to others.

Inversion fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

Educate yourself, moron

You are clueless on the definition of infringement. Because you are too stupid to understand the simple definition, you are too stupid to understand how I use it.

Heller, dumbfuck. How many times do I need to quote it?

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in thbopinione historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”

[Gonzomin]

Militias are not a requirement. The 2nd amendment discusses TWO rights, not one.

1) The right of a free State to defend itself by forming militias. Several States currently have active militias. This protects the States from a rogue federal government.
2) The right of a person to defend himself by bearing arms. That means buying, owning, and using guns as well as any other type of arm. This protects the individual from a rogue State or federal government, as well as from wild animals, pests, criminals, etc.

The Constitution does not grant these rights. These rights are inherently a right of Man simply because he is a living breathing thing. States are made up of individuals.

Only say it in article 2 so yes it is.I suppose the silence on grenade launchers makes them legal too.

[domer76]

Militias are not a requirement. The 2nd amendment discusses TWO rights, not one.

1) The right of a free State to defend itself by forming militias. Several States currently have active militias. This protects the States from a rogue federal government.
2) The right of a person to defend himself by bearing arms. That means buying, owning, and using guns as well as any other type of arm. This protects the individual from a rogue State or federal government, as well as from wild animals, pests, criminals, etc.

The Constitution does not grant these rights. These rights are inherently a right of Man simply because he is a living breathing thing. States are made up of individuals.

Bearing arms is not a right of Man you fucking moron. It’s a right granted, out of all the countries in the world, to the US and maybe one other country. Another uninformed comment.

You cannot name one “inherent” right of man that is universally held. You can’t even define what that is.

[Into the Night]

Inversion fallacy: ...deleted Holy Link...

1) Wikipedia is summarily discarded. You cannot use that as a reference with me.
2) You linked to an unrelated fallacy that has nothing to do with an inversion fallacy.
False authority fallacy. Redirection fallacy.

...deleted insult...
You are clueless on the definition of infringement.
Because you are too stupid to understand the simple definition, you are too stupid to understand how I use it.
...deleted unrelated chanting...

You are using it to mean infringement on gun rights by gun control laws, and moving the goalposts to mean property rights are gun control laws. That's a fallacy, dude.