Wisconsin Supreme Court hands Democrats huge win with ballot box decision

[Into the Night]

LOL... Yes, just reading the law is going to fix everything.

What's broken???

Am I in an alternate universe? Am I on candid camera? Am I being Punk'd?

Seriously... this simply can NOT be a serious conversation?

As I find myself saying repeatedly.... I'm going to need more palms and more face to continue reading yours and Into the Night's posts.

No. I asked for what "well" means in the context of a militia.

RQAA.

The federal army is well regulated. If you are going to tell me that the state militia is also well regulated, then clearly the word well has no meaning at all. Tell me how you define well that both the federal and state militaries are regulated as such.

it does. Too bad you can't read and understand English.

That's fine because, according to you, we all inherently and magically agree on the meaning of all words, written in any order, in any context. No need to define anything. The definitions just magically float down from space and we alllll agree!

It's not my fault you cannot read and understand English.

Why do you get to define "arms"? What if I don't agree? Where did you get your definition and why is less valid than mine? You better not use a dictionary, you fucking psycho!

I didn't define 'arms'. You just have trouble reading and understanding English.

I didn't ask if kids own guns.

Yes you did. Denying your own post won't get you anywhere.

I asked if a kid, if he had the money, can walk into a gun shop and buy a gun. Sounds like an infringement on someone's right if he can't.

Kids own guns.

Rights only apply at a certain age?

Some do, some don't. The right to self defense exists at any age.

The second amendment says nothing about age and I've been sitting here reading it over and over and over and over.

That's right. There is no age restriction on any weapon.

Unless the government establishes an age restriction... despite there being nothing about age in the 2nd amendment. #FacePalm

The government has no such authority. That is parents to decide until their children come of age.

Questions? Why would I ask questions. I've read the wording of 2A 39 times. I have no questions

Yet you are still asking questions.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL... Yes, just reading the law is going to fix everything.

Am I in an alternate universe? Am I on candid camera? Am I being Punk'd?

Seriously... this simply can NOT be a serious conversation?

As I find myself saying repeatedly.... I'm going to need more palms and more face to continue reading yours and Into the Night's posts.

Too bad you have so much trouble with English.

 

[Into the Night]

"They listen to the lawyers present the case and then they use existing law as the basis for their respective decisions."

First of all, they don't use just existing law. They also read what the Constitution says, interpret its meaning and make a ruling. See current ruling about Trump and immunity which was almost entirely uncharted territory.

Second, I'm not playing word games. You and Tin Foil II can try and make this an argument about semantics, but I'm not participating.

You are playing word games. It is YOUR semantics fallacies. You cannot blame YOUR fallacies on anybody else.

 

[IBDaMann]

First of all, they don't use just existing law.

Yes, they use existing law and only existing law. This includes common law and precedent.

They also read what the Constitution says,

The Constitution is existing law.

interpret its meaning and make a ruling.

They never interpret any law and they are not rulers. Judges decide cases.

See current ruling about Trump and immunity which was almost entirely uncharted territory.

What ruler issued fiat commands? Oh, did you mean the case that SCOTUS decided?

I wish you'd stop playing word games. Do a crossword puzzle if you need to play word games.

 

[Into the Night]

"They listen to the lawyers present the case and then they use existing law as the basis for their respective decisions."

First of all, they don't use just existing law.

They are required to use existing law.

They also read what the Constitution says, interpret its meaning and make a ruling.

Not court has any authority to interpret or change any constitution.

See current ruling about Trump and immunity which was almost entirely uncharted territory.

The word 'immune'' does not appear in the Constitution of the United States except when describing citizens of States.
The Supreme Court did not change the Constitution in it's ruling. Immunity is granted to the President by law (not the Constitution).

Second, I'm not playing word games. You and Tin Foil II can try and make this an argument about semantics, but I'm not participating.

You are playing word games.

 

[ZenMode]

They are required to use existing law.

Please read and include ALL the words in my posts.

"First of all, they don't use just existing law."

Not court has any authority to interpret or change any constitution.

As I told IBDaMann I'm not playing your games. So, when I say "interpret" you can insert whatever word you like that means "determine the meaning or intent of...." the wording in the Constitution.

The word 'immune'' does not appear in the Constitution of the United States except when describing citizens of States.

I never said it does. Thanks.

The Supreme Court did not change the Constitution in it's ruling.

I never said they did. What they DID do was reference the Constitution when deciding what Trump could be charged with.

Immunity is granted to the President by law (not the Constitution).

Based on what are Constitutionally determined to be official Presidential actions.

You are playing word games.

 

[ZenMode]

it does. Too bad you can't read and understand English.

Then tell me some of the things that make BOTH the Federal military and state Militia's "well" regulated.

It's not my fault you cannot read and understand English.

Lol... Says the person actually believes the federal and state militaries are "well" regulated.

I didn't define 'arms'. You just have trouble reading and understanding English.

Someone did and I guarantee you that person had no fucking clue what a nuclear weapon was and they'd be incredibly concerned if it was later determined to be ok for citizens to own them.

Yes you did. Denying your own post won't get you anywhere.

Kids own guns.

Still lying....For the THIRD time, I asked if a child could walk into a gun shop and buy a gun since 2A says NOTHING about age restrictions. I never questioned whether or not a child could own a gun. Hopefully you are done being intentionally dishonest.

That's right. There is no age restriction on any weapon.

Great. So, you agree that a 10 year old could save his money, walk into a gun shop and buy a gun?

The government has no such authority. That is parents to decide until their children come of age.

The dishonesty continues....

Yet you are still asking questions.

Yep, I will until you start answering the questions I ASKED.

 

[Into the Night]

Please read and include ALL the words in my posts.

I will include the portions that I respond to.

"First of all, they don't use just existing law."

As I told IBDaMann I'm not playing your games. So, when I say "interpret" you can insert whatever word you like that means "determine the meaning or intent of...." the wording in the Constitution.

Semantics fallacy. The Supreme court has no authority to change or interpret any constitution. The semantics games are YOURS. Inversion fallacy.

I never said it does. Thanks.

Blatant lie.

I never said they did. What they DID do was reference the Constitution when deciding what Trump could be charged with.

No such clause in the Constitution, Void. You cannot reference what is not there.

Based on what are Constitutionally determined to be official Presidential actions.

So? Did you know the President's authority is described in the Constitution of the United States?

 

[Into the Night]

Then tell me some of the things that make BOTH the Federal military and state Militia's "well" regulated.Lol... Says the person actually believes the federal and state militaries are "well" regulated.
Someone did and I guarantee you that person had no fucking clue what a nuclear weapon was and they'd be incredibly concerned if it was later determined to be ok for citizens to own them.Still lying....For the THIRD time, I asked if a child could walk into a gun shop and buy a gun since 2A says NOTHING about age restrictions. I never questioned whether or not a child could own a gun. Hopefully you are done being intentionally dishonest.Great. So, you agree that a 10 year old could save his money, walk into a gun shop and buy a gun?The dishonesty continues....
Yep, I will until you start answering the questions I ASKED.

You really should learn English. RQAA.

 

[ZenMode]

I will include the portions that I respond to.

Semantics fallacy. The Supreme court has no authority to change or interpret any constitution. The semantics games are YOURS. Inversion fallacy.

Blatant lie.

No such clause in the Constitution, Void. You cannot reference what is not there.

So? Did you know the President's authority is described in the Constitution of the United States?

Your ability to play games, play dumb and be blatantly dishonest, to avoid acknowledging your flawed thinking, is truly amazing.

 

[ZenMode]

You really should learn English. RQAA.

As I say every time you can't defend your claims, better luck next time......

 

[Into the Night]

Your ability to play games, play dumb and be blatantly dishonest, to avoid acknowledging your flawed thinking, is truly amazing.

LIF. Grow up.

 

[Into the Night]

As I say every time you can't defend your claims, better luck next time......

Assumption of victory fallacy. Cliche fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

Assumption of victory fallacy. Cliche fallacy.

Then prove me wrong. Explain to me how both the state militias and federal military are both "well" regulated. I mean did you really think you can just say shit and I'm supposed to accept it as fact?

 

[Into the Night]

Then prove me wrong. Explain to me how both the state militias and federal military are both "well" regulated. I mean did you really think you can just say shit and I'm supposed to accept it as fact?

Go learn English. I'm not here to give English lessons. I don't need to prove English to you.

 

[Into the Night]

Your ability to play games, play dumb and be blatantly dishonest, to avoid acknowledging your flawed thinking, is truly amazing.

Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your semantics fallacies on me or anybody else.

 

[Into the Night]

As I say every time you can't defend your claims, better luck next time......

Redefinition fallacy (RQAA<->defeat). Assumption of victory fallacy. Cliche fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

Go learn English. I'm not here to give English lessons. I don't need to prove English to you.

I know English. That's why I'm asking the question. The word "well" has a meaning and I don't see how anyone can say both the federal and state militaries are "well" regulated.

 

[ZenMode]

Redefinition fallacy (RQAA<->defeat). Assumption of victory fallacy. Cliche fallacy.

I can't help that you can't defend your position.

 

[ZenMode]

Deflection won't work, Void.

FIFY

Reported. Do not modify quotes to misquote.