? for the Libs

[Into the Night]

You didn't read the article or even what I posted.

He read your post, and responded to it. Contextomy fallacy.

...the appeals court decided the laws prohibit only sales agreements on public property — not discussions, advertisements or other speech about firearms. The bans “do not directly or inevitably restrict any expressive activity,” Judge Richard Clifton wrote in Tuesday’s ruling.

By what authority??

People can go to the county fair and talk about guns, advertise guns, show films about guns, but they cannot go there and buy and sell guns. Speech was not restricted per the court's ruling.

Buying and selling is also a form of free expression/speech. It is legal to buy and sell guns.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

He read your post, and responded to it. Contextomy fallacy.

No such thing. You're just making shit up.

By what authority??

The court is authorized to make decisions on the constitutionality of something. They did.

Buying and selling is also a form of free expression/speech. It is legal to buy and sell guns.

The court addressed that and dismissed this was a case of commerce as free expression.

 

[IBDaMann]

Gun shows and gun sales are not the same thing. One is protected under the 1st Amendment and the other can be regulated.

Firearm commerce is merely an optional component. The right of the people to peaceably assemble and to engage in free speech is what gun shows "do."

People can go to the county fair and talk about guns, advertise guns, show films about guns, but they cannot go there and buy and sell guns. Speech was not restricted per the court's ruling.

It would have been much easier and much clearer for you to have written "IBDaMann, you are totally correct and I totally agree."

 

[IBDaMann]

Tbird19482

Now there's the eloquent Tbird19482 upon whom we've come to depend! You rarely disappoint. Thank you.

 

[IBDaMann]

Tbird19482

Awesome! A Tbird19482 double-bagger! Good times.

 

[Into the Night]

No such thing. You're just making shit up.

A contextomy fallacy (which you committed) is shifting context or even losing context, usually in an effort to change the subject. It occurs when someone uses a phrase originally meant for one context in another unrelated context. ALL fallacies are errors in logic, like arithmetic errors are error in mathematics.

The court is authorized to make decisions on the constitutionality of something. They did.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Evasion. Strawman fallacy.
Answer the question: By what authority did the court make that ruling?

The court addressed that and dismissed this was a case of commerce as free expression.

No court has any authority to change any constitution. Commerce is a form of expression.

 

[Tbird19482]

Awesome! A Tbird19482 double-bagger! Good times.

Here I will do it again ASSHOLE

 

[T. A. Gardner]

A contextomy fallacy (which you committed) is shifting context or even losing context, usually in an effort to change the subject. It occurs when someone uses a phrase originally meant for one context in another unrelated context. ALL fallacies are errors in logic, like arithmetic errors are error in mathematics.

A "contextomy fallacy" is to quote out of context.

Quoting out of context - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Logical Fallacy: Quoting Out of Context

Since nothing was quoted, with context or not, no fallacy was committed.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Evasion. Strawman fallacy.
Answer the question: By what authority did the court make that ruling?

I linked both articles and subject matter that showed this. You are ignoring it.

No court has any authority to change any constitution. Commerce is a form of expression.

The court didn't "change any constitution," be it the US one or Venezuela's. The court, and I specifically pointed it out, said this form of commerce was not expression.

 

[Into the Night]

A "contextomy fallacy" is to quote out of context.

Which you did.

Since nothing was quoted, with context or not, no fallacy was committed.

Yes it was. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

I linked both articles and subject matter that showed this. You are ignoring it.

Contextomy fallacy.

The court didn't "change any constitution,"

Ignoring the 1st, 2nd, and 14th amendments, and Article I, $2 of the Constitution of the State of California is changing the constitution, dude. No court as any such authority.

be it the US one or Venezuela's. The court, and I specifically pointed it out, said this form of commerce was not expression.

Commerce is an expression. The federal court ignored the 14th amendment and Article I, $2 of the Constitution of the State of California, and equal opportunity laws of the State of California, and the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It has NO authority to set aside any of these documents or laws.

 

[IBDaMann]

Here I will do it again ASSHOLE View attachment 46763

Only one?

 

[Tbird19482]

Only one?

well hare is another one if you need it that bad.
happy now ASSHOLE?

 

[Tbird19482]

well hare is another one if you need it that bad.
happy now ASSHOLE?
View attachment 46780

Before dumb fuck comes back and says something I made a typo it should have been HERE not hare.