In before the gun confiscation NUTS.....

[fatman76]

I'm not interpreting 'bearing arms'. If you have two guns, you are 'bearing arms', correct?

Yes but so is having 300.

It's not a limiting statement, in fact, when you take the entire thing in context it's actually the opposite.

You can't split the baby here. The meaning of one phrase in a statement is depending upon the others.

Here's an analogy:
"In order to maintain a healthy and happy lifestyle, I need to have money."

If I have $0.01 does that mean I have money?

 

[RussellCasse]

That's right but, if you have two guns, you ARE 'bearing arms' and that is what the constitution promises.

Your right to 'bear arms' shall not be infringed......not your right to unlimited weapons.

You still seem to not understand the constitution is limiting the Government, not We the People. You really suck at this.

And lets read your sentence again. Your right to bear arms shall not be limited (infringed)

Limited: restricted in size, amount, or extent; few, small, or short.

We are done here. Go back to daddy Kasich.

 

[fatman76]

Cultist minds work so predictably.

If I want any restrictions on guns at all, I must want to totally disarm everyone (because I'm a liberal, of course).

The gun companies have trained you well.

Calling people you're debating with names means you've lost on the concepts. There's no proof or evidence anyone on this board is in an actual cult, and an open reading of the 2A certainly isn't an indication that someone is in a cult.

This is true in every debate.

If you hate guns and feel you hate supersedes the 2A then just say it, but you've lost this debate at this point.

 

[fatman76]

The left as a whole keeps parroting the word “cultist”. It’s really odd that an entire segment of society has been infected with this verbiage like it’s covid. Very choreographed, Almost like…

I guess racist, sexist, conspiracy theorists….were no longer working.

What will the next ist be?

When you can't win on facts and logic classify your opponent as a crazy, bad or dumb person - ridicule them in any way possible...thereby nullifying any position they take and forcing them to defend a non-sequitur out of anger.

It's rule #5 in the liberal handbook:

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Saul Alinsky was a very effective organizer and he developed the following rules for getting organized. It is important to understand all of the tactics that might be called into play on any issue. These…

sliwainsights.com

 

[GatorTheo]

Yes but so is having 300.

It's not a limiting statement, in fact, when you take the entire thing in context it's actually the opposite.

You can't split the baby here. The meaning of one phrase in a statement is depending upon the others.

Here's an analogy:
"In order to maintain a healthy and happy lifestyle, I need to have money."

If I have $0.01 does that mean I have money?

It's not a limiting statement but they could install a two gun limit without infringing your right to bear arms.

A better analogy would be me advertising 'free cheeseburgers'.

You come, I give you two free cheeseburger and you demand all of them.

I say, "I only promised free cheeseburgers and that's what I gave you."

 

[GatorTheo]

When you can't win on facts and logic classify your opponent as a crazy, bad or dumb person - ridicule them in any way possible......

That is absolutely true. People who can't logically debate characterize their opponents as crazy, bad, dumb, troll, lemmings, sheep, porch sitters, etc..

 

[RussellCasse]

It's not a limiting statement but they could install a two gun limit without infringing your right to bear arms.

False. By definition. Not sure how you have made it this far in life with such a limited (infringed)ability to comprehend the meaning of words.

You know, vocabulary.

How does one limit, without limiting?

Limit and infringe are synonymous with each other. I know, words are hard.

 

[gatordad3]

Have any of you notice how Theo(Die Hard) never had a gun in his possession?

 

[RussellCasse]

Have any of you notice how Theo(Die Hard) never had a gun in his possession?

View embedded media

I have noticed how @GatorTheo has an infringed vocabulary.

 

[GatorTheo]

False. By definition. Not sure how you have made it this far in life with such a limited (infringed)ability to comprehend the meaning of words.

You know, vocabulary.

How does one limit, without limiting?

Limit and infringe are synonymous with each other. I know, words are hard.

Yes or no question:

If you have two guns, are you bearing arms?

 

[gatordad3]

I have noticed how @GatorTheo has an infringed vocabulary.

Theo even had the Huey Lewis looking dude doing the shooting for him.

 

[RussellCasse]

Yes or no question:

If you have two guns, are you bearing arms?

Yes or no question. If the government says I can only have 2, is that limiting the amount I can have?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Have any of you notice how Theo(Die Hard) never had a gun in his possession?

View embedded media

He ended up dying, right?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

It's not a limiting statement but they could install a two gun limit without infringing your right to bear arms.

A better analogy would be me advertising 'free cheeseburgers'.

You come, I give you two free cheeseburger and you demand all of them.

I say, "I only promised free cheeseburgers and that's what I gave you."

And you would be sued for false advertising. And you would lose.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

When you can't win on facts and logic classify your opponent as a crazy, bad or dumb person - ridicule them in any way possible...thereby nullifying any position they take and forcing them to defend a non-sequitur out of anger.

It's rule #5 in the liberal handbook:

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Saul Alinsky was a very effective organizer and he developed the following rules for getting organized. It is important to understand all of the tactics that might be called into play on any issue. These…

sliwainsights.com

All liberals do this.

 

[RussellCasse]

Let’s all read Theos sentence again. why? Because it’s quite funny.

It's not a limiting statement but they could install a two gun limit without infringing your right to bear arms.

Now, let’s do it with synonyms.

It's not a limiting statement but they could install a two gun limit without limiting your right to bear arms.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

You still seem to not understand the constitution is limiting the Government, not We the People. You really suck at this.

That's precisely where the disconnect is.

Libs want big government, and small personal rights.

 

[GatorTheo]

Yes or no question. If the government says I can only have 2, is that limiting the amount I can have?

You seem to have forgotten to answer my question.

Now to your question:

Yes. If the government said you could only have 2, they are limiting the amount you can have (but they haven't infringed your right to bear arms because they are allowing you to bear arms).

 

[RussellCasse]

Yes. If the government said you could only have 2, they are limiting the amount you can have (but they haven't limited your right to bear arms because they are allowing you to bear arms).

Fixed it for you. Again, by definition, they have.

They have limited my right, by putting a limit on my right. Limiting my right to a number.

Good lawd. I really appreciate this level of trolling.

Again, shall not be limited.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

You seem to have forgotten to answer my question.

Now to your question:

Yes. If the government said you could only have 2, they are limiting the amount you can have (but they haven't infringed your right to bear arms because they are allowing you to bear arms).

That's why the Constitution doesn't say that. Because the Constitution doesn't infringe on our right to bear arms.

You keep trying to use the cheeseburger analogy. You claim that if you advertised 'free cheeseburgers' with no restrictions, then tried to restrict customers to just 2, that you could do that.

You cannot. You would be sued for false advertising. Many fast food chains do this, McDonalds had a Free Fries Friday a couple of years ago. Taco Bell had a Taco Tuesday promotion.

In both cases, they specified that you could only get ONE free item. Because if they didn't specify, some smartass would show up wanting all their tacos or fries, and they would have to either give them to them, or close the store. Cause they would be sued for false advertising.

And they would lose. As you do here.

Your Rivals membership gives you the right to post here. Why didn't you stop when you hit your 2nd post, around 20 years ago?

 

[GatorTheo]

Fixed it for you. Again, by definition, they have.

They have limited my right, by putting a limit on my right. Limiting my right to a number.

Good lawd. I really appreciate this level of trolling.

Does the constitution tell you how many guns you can have?

Hint: It doesn't. It only tells you that you can bear arms.

You never have answered my yes or no question so here it is again:

If you have two guns, are you bearing arms?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Does the constitution tell you how many guns you can have?

Hint: It doesn't. It only tells you that you can bear arms.

Rivals tells you that can post.

Why did you continue to post after you left your 2nd post, 20 years ago?

Should we get @FresnoGator to check and see if you are violating the Rivals TOS, and have been for the last 20 years?

 

[RussellCasse]

Does the constitution tell you how many guns you can have?

Hint: It doesn't. It only tells you that you can bear arms.

Bingo. It doesn’t, and it states my right to bear ARMS (plural) shall not be limited.

Shall not be limited to 2.

Thx for playing. You really do suck at this.

 

[GatorTheo]

Rivals tells you that can post.

Why did you continue to post after you left your 2nd post, 20 years ago?

Should we get @FresnoGator to check and see if you are violating the Rivals TOS, and have been for the last 20 years?

Can Rivals limit my posting or do I have the right to post for all eternity.

 

[RussellCasse]

Rivals tells you that can post.

Why did you continue to post after you left your 2nd post, 20 years ago?

Should we get @FresnoGator to check and see if you are violating the Rivals TOS, and have been for the last 20 years?

We should probably also ask Jason if calling people cultist is name calling.

Posting right shall be infringed. 😂

 

[GatorTheo]

Bingo. It doesn’t, and it states my right to bear ARMS (plural) shall not be limited.

Shall not be limited to 2.

Thx for playing. You really do suck at this.

If you have two guns, are you bearing arms?

 

[RussellCasse]

If you have two guns, are you bearing arms?

If you limit somone to 2, you ARE limiting. Infringing.

You know, the inconvenient part you continue to leave out.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Can Rivals limit my posting or do I have the right to post for all eternity.

Applying the same logic you want to use for the Constitution, you should have self-policed and stopped posting 20 years ago. I just want to verify what the TOS says with @FresnoGator

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

If you have two guns, are you bearing arms?

If you post the same troll repeatedly, are you spamming the board? I can tag a mod, if you like.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

We should probably also ask Jason if calling people cultist is name calling.

Posting right shall be infringed. 😂

Jason and Fresno know that theo is acting a fool, but he has a Gold membership so they would never admit that LOL

 

[GatorTheo]

If you limit somone to 2, you ARE limiting. Infringing.

You know, the inconvenient part you continue to leave out.

But I'm not infringing on your right to bear whatever the item is.

If the constitution said you have the right to bear unlimited arms, you all would have a great point.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

But I'm not infringing on your right to bear whatever the item is.

If the constitution said you have the right to bear unlimited arms, you all would have a great point.

If the Constitution said you could only bear 2 arms, you would have a great point.

We have the worst trolls on the internet.

 

[GatorTheo]

If you post the same troll repeatedly, are you spamming the board? I can tag a mod, if you like.

You mean you can tag a mod again?

 

[RussellCasse]

But I'm not infringing on your right to bear whatever the item is.

If the constitution said you have the right to bear unlimited arms, you all would have a great point.

and….that’s the point. The one you keep missing.

You know “infringed….not limited….aka “unlimited”.

Unlike your infringed vocabulary.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

You mean you can tag a mod again?

Or report you for the first time. But since you haven't broken any board rules, I doubt anything would be done, other than maybe telling me to chill out.

 

[fatman76]

That is absolutely true. People who can't logically debate characterize their opponents as crazy, bad, dumb, troll, lemmings, sheep, porch sitters, etc..

Which what you're doing when you call us cultists.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

and….that’s the point. The one you keep missing.

You know “infringed….not limited….aka “unlimited”.

Unlike your infringed vocabulary.

He knows. He thinks this is effective trolling.

Remember, our trolls believe a troll is successful if it gets a reply. So if 50 posters tell a troll every day that their troll is terrible and they are a dumbass, our trolls view that as being a success.

We have the worst.

 

[RussellCasse]

Jason and Fresno know that theo is acting a fool, but he has a Gold membership so they would never admit that LOL

Agreed.

 

[GatorTheo]

Which what you're doing when you call us cultists.

I agree. It goes both ways.

 

[fatman76]

If you have two guns, are you bearing arms?

Yes. If I have 100 I am also bearing arms.

But only allowing me to have two guns is not fulfilling the first part of the amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Why do you think you're allowed to only pick one part of the amendment and have it apply to the whole thing? A well regulated militia the secures a free state is going to require a little more firepower than 2 bolt action .22 cal rifles. Which is why your argument is nonsense, they never intended the statement "bearing arms" to be limiting, in fact the intention was the opposite.

Your argument is analogous to $0.01 as "having money".