Conservatives think parts of the Constitution are "fake"

domer76 said:
On the surface, the 2nd may allow any weapon, but Heller says you're full of shit.

"2. 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 the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.
 
zymurgy said:
idiot

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally
applied only to the Federal Government, not to the States, see, e.g.,
Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 247, but the
constitutional Amendments adopted in the Civil War’s aftermath
fundamentally altered the federal system.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.
 
domer76 said:
Fuck you and your fallacies.
Click to expand...
Don't make them.
domer76 said:
Here's your REALITY.
Click to expand...
Define 'reality'.
domer76 said:
You're just fucking stupid. Nothing fallacious about that.
Click to expand...
YALIFNAP.
domer76 said:
Now, let's see "Ad Hom" stupid fuck. It still doesn't change reality.
Click to expand...
Define 'reality'.
domer76 said:
Want me to quote Heller again?
Click to expand...
You seem to find comfort in quoting this out of context, but it makes no difference. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.
 
Into the Night said:
Don't make them.

Define 'reality'.

YALIFNAP.

Define 'reality'.

You seem to find comfort in quoting this out of context, but it makes no difference. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Reality? You're a delusional dumbfuck.

YALIFNAP? Speak English, cunt

Reality? You're a delusional dumbfuck.

Write SCOTUS and provide your vast knowledge. They'll give it all the consideration it deserves.

Idiot
 
domer76 said:
What the fuck is inversion fallacy?
Click to expand...
Using your own failings as an argument against another. Some people also call this 'projection'.
domer76 said:
I've searched it and never found it.
There is inverse fallacy, but never inversion fallacy.
Click to expand...
You just admitted that you know nothing but what you can find on Google. Sad.
domer76 said:
Why don't you just cite the source and definition?
Click to expand...
Logic. But you deny logic. All fallacies are errors in logic, just like arithmetic errors are errors in mathematics.

((?A->B)->(C->B))->(!(A->B)&(C->B)), an illegal equation in logic.
 
domer76 said:
Fuck you and your fallacies.

Here's your REALITY.

You're just fucking stupid. Nothing fallacious about that.

Now, let's see "Ad Hom" stupid fuck. It still doesn't change reality.

Want me to quote Heller again?

:rofl2:
Click to expand...

Into the Night has multiple accounts on these boards, and they switch to Into the Night when they cannot defend themselves, and start spamming the board with fallacies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top