14 students killed, 1 teacher dead in elementary school shooting

Scalias quote IS the argument.
He spoke against uncontrolled gun ownership and use and noted those against whom he saw reasonable.
And as much as you call is misinformation you have not disproven it. Nor have you proven any fallacies because that fact is the only one I presented.
And he represented SCOTUS when he said it.
It is you who post pages of irrelevancies in an effort to get me to divert the point.
Now I am done here. To accusé me of needing your protection is hilarious. I leave my doors and windows open and when i leave a crédit card on an open dashboard and it is still there 20 minutes later, I can tell you exactly what freedom is. Freedom from tension, paranoïa, the superman complex and ridiculous slithery diverting discussions like this one. Not one of your silly irrelevant points have found its mark. I can only hope your skills at hitting a target with a gun care far better than with debating.
I won't say take care. I'll leave that warnig for anyone within your range.
I am lucky. I can ignore you. You have had far more of my attention than your posts deserve.
BTW have you checked out Wiki's page on The Enlightenment yet? You might learn something so you dont make any more silly comments.

 

Wrong. The first words of the Second Amendment are a dependent clause. On their own they command nothing and prohibit nothing. They are merely a philosophical statement. The rest of the words of the Amendment are the independent clause. They constitute the meaning of the Amendment. They command the government to NOT infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

The words are defining à context. A reason for what comes next. They don't "define the meaning". They explain WHY AND WHEN people can keep arms. Keeping arms needs no explanation or translation.
Like
" seeing as it is now dark, you can switch the lights on".
We all know what switching lights on means the context given before dozsnt help knowing that but the words explained the when and why.

 

You are not being honest. Here is me quoting YOU with the PF quote function.

I did not add the bolded portion and it does not appear in Giffords web site as this link and screen shot show.
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/second-amendment/the-supreme-court-the-second-amendment/





Wow! You quote from the majority opinion of a SC case and are on record chastising other PF members for not reading it and you have never heard of Heller, the Respondent who brought the case against the District of Colombia and say the case you quote from through the Supreme Court? Well that explains your ignorance of the document. You’ve never read it, you are only plagiarizing others quoting it.

calling an argument nonsense is a logical fallacy known as appeal to the stone fallacy.

Scalia said many things. What you presented is irrelevant to this argument you made here:

In fact, the portions of Scalia’s text I supplied clearly shows the majority of the court disagrees with your unsubstantiated opinion. They said this, bolding added by me for emphasis.

I know you haven’t attributed anything but your scorn for freedom loving people willing to sacrifice their lives to the French Resistance. You e been very clear of your disdain for those who oppose tyrants.

I’m the only party in this conversation who does any research. You said this to others but never did any research yourself. If you had you would have “heard of Heller”.

You do your homework Pixie. So far I’ve done it for you. You have only plagiarized and provided unsubstantiated opinions. Again, thanks for demonstrating the bankruptcy of the anti gun movement in ability to make intellectual arguments or provide factual information.

 

That is one of the silliest 'explanations' of the Second Amendment I have ever read.

 

Quote me saying I protect you in any way. Go ahead. You are now making things up out of whole cloth. If you can’t quote me saying I protect you your credibility on PF is completely gone (as if your plagiarism etc. haven’t already destroyed it). Quote me making the statement you say I made Pixie. Quote me.

Scalia's words you quoted are irrelevant to the argument of yours I’ve responded to. Period.

I never lock my house or vehicles. That’s irrelevant though. I’m more free from tension apparently than you because I don’t resort to emotional outbursts and instead use logic, FACTS and reason in debate.

I have shot on a range ONCE as a part of acquiring a carry permit. All other shooting is for practical application alone, never on a range.

Thank you for resorting to pure ad hominem after accusing me of making things personal. It is further evidence you have no facts or intellectual argument to back your so far unsubstantiated opinions.

I have posted quite a lot of content on PF concerning the Enlightenment. You should read it instead of Wikipedia. I guarantee you my content is superior.

Are you taking my advice and staying under the porch since you can’t run with the big dogs that have facts and logic on their side? LOL

 

Sigh.
It is of no import to whom scalia addressed his text.
IT IS WHAT HE EXPLAINS AS THE CONDITIONS INHERENT IN THE DECISION.
He could be talking to god but it is what he says that counts.
It has been me who has substantiated my position I don't see any links countering mine, dear heart.
The original 2A ties gun use with being in a militia where having à gun would be kind of essential.
I have (now long ago) said more than once that arguing on the basis of 2A is not valid. It does not refer to today's context. It has dated itself out of relevancy.
Scalia redefined the times when gun use is justified. HE CLEARLY SAID THE RULING DOES NOT ALLOW UNRESTRICTED CARRY OR USE of guns.
Why should I care to whom he said it? The point is, HE DID SAY IT.
In the shadow of what the conversation was when I submitted the quote (which I note you now accept as valid) was that 2A gave the people uñfetter3f access and use of arms.
Neither in 1787 or 2008 is that true.
Your constant inability to stay with what the point of this conversation is, is disappointing. Hence you wobble around the subject you redefine hoping to hook onto something you make up I said.
Enough. There is nothing of value left in your ramblings.
Good day.

 

It is called English.
Is it not your first language?

 

It's called Tortured English, accompanied by tortured logic, your specialty it seems.

 

I know. We can't all be English language teachers as I was.

 

No.
It is English as it was spoken in 1787.
The clause starting with à participle to explain the main thought was common then. For example Jane Austen uses it à lot.

 

I’ve directly addressed YOUR POINT. Here it is again.

And here is the relevant part of Scalia’s text to your claim.

I don’t care that Scalia made the comment you quoted. It’s irrelevant to the point you tried to make about militias being necessary to legitimize firearm keeping and bearing. Period. Full stop. I have never said the quote was not from Scalia or that it wasn’t what he said.


But I did point out you plagiarized a quote from Giffords without naming them or providing a link. I pointed out YOU added “Heller Law Center” below the plagiarized quote, an entity not mentioned or seen in Giffords website and that does not even exist. Of course I provided links, pull quotes and screenshots as evidence while all you provide is easily debunked unsubstantiated opinions. The quote you provided was not valid. It was plagiarized and mis-attributed intentionally to a man you claim you never heard of even though he brought the suit to the SC you tried to quote from. And you didn’t read it but chastised others for not reading it.

You have been shown to post fraudulent material on a regular basis. You are not to be trusted as you can not post links to your sources and make up fake sources.

The idea the militia is outdated is your OPINION that you have not substantiated in ANY way. I have referenced the Militia Acts, the Supreme Court, and the existence of the federalized Union of States as evidence for my position. You refuse to provide ANY evidence for your opinions. Probably because you are plagiarizing them as well.

The fact you think the problem is who Scalia was addressing gives the game away. I’ve never said anything about who he was addressing. I’ve only pointed out you are a plagiarist and can’t be trusted because you do not provide accurate sources.

Your credibility here is now nonexistent. Thanks for being the latest example of the underhanded methods employed by the anti gun cabal.

 

Read my link to Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller vs DC. You will find your unsubstantiated opinion is incorrect.

 

What's this? Is this some dumb argument that using small arms against a tank, drone, jet, missile gives you a chance to put up a fight? lol

 

It's not an argument it's called a question if you were unable to notice that.

The argument is small arms are useless but evidently the military does not feel that way because they still use Small arms.

 

The argument is that small arms are useless against the military.. who goes after you with drones, tanks, missiles.
You're free to argue against it. I'm not seeing an argument. Just a dumb question.

 

You seem to fail to understand that small arms remain extremely common in military conflicts around the globe.

 

You're not making an argument what small arms can do when you get droned, shot at by a tank, get a missile aimed at you by an aircraft.

 

You and the rest are unable to make an argument that any of the hundreds of gun control laws on the books have made any person safe. The reason for that is simple: gun control laws do not deliver safety to ANYBODY.

Yes, such laws do deliver job security to the many enforcement bureaus, but they don't make the public any more safe.

 

I'm not trying to make an argument I'm simply stating a well-known fact.

If Small arms were so useless against the military the military would not be using them.

 

The hell? lol
What you need is strict gun control like every other modern western nation.
They are showing to the US, with their dumb right wing policies, that they work.

 

yes, the fact is that all armies got small arms as well.
They still don't put a dent if they only use them when opposing an army using tanks, jets, drones .... the heavy arms. It'll be a walk over. Small arms, as why it's needed according to the constitution, has been caught up by technology. An army only using that, is a joke. Get over it.

 

Evidently they see military value in their use so you get over that

 

Your suggestion that the US gov would bring out tanks and planes against the 170 million gun owning Americans is just one in many of your consistent fabrications. Why you spend so much time making things up is a mystery.