I am tired of most pro-gun arguments

Yeah I made it.

 

ok, so that's a no then.

 

I can understand that. The NRA would do a big disservice to their cause if they lie. I prefer to do my own research too, and rely heavily on John Lott's research.

 

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. Thank you for making that point so consistently in our arguments.

 

you don't know what a non sequitur is.

I have directly refuted your argument using suupreme court precedent.

your strawmen have no effect on my argument.

 

Simply appealing to ignorance is no way to inspire confidence in your sincerity.

 

which is why I didn't, and why you have no idea what that means.

do you think you are fooling anyone?

 

I am not the one resorting to the most fallacies for my Cause.

 

I haven't used a single fallacy in my arguments, and you have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no idea what a fallacy is as you keep misusing them. I've directly refuted you using supreme court precedent.

you, however, keep inventing strawmen and attibuting them to me. it's pathetic.

 

Simply claiming that without citing any rules of construction or the actual fallacy involved, or simply actually refuting my argument with valid arguments, instead of non sequiturs, which are also, usually considered fallacies, does nothing for your argument or your Cause.

Are you claiming you want to distance yourself from a position you claim to have?

 

you have no idea what a non sequitur is. I directly refuted your argument with supreme court precedent.

my position has not changed in any way since I first refuted your claim. the second amendments meaning, as it pertains to the individual, is that the individuals right to keep and bear arms is in no way tied to nor dependant upon any militia.

your strawmen have no effect on my argument nor do they fool anyone. it's pathetic.

 

You keep claiming that, but that very Same ruling declares that persons, specifically unconnected with militia service may be denied and disparaged and infringed in their alleged Right to keep and bear Arms. Where in our Second Amendment does it say that the People have an inalienable or indefeasible right to keep and bear Arms?

If due process affects any ruling under our Second Amendment, it implies that due process is the more proper direction for interpretation.

Our existing laws, custom, tradition, and practice; provides all the anecdotal "proof" I need to demonstrate that your line of reasoning is unsound; since it is current Practice in our Republic for well regulated militias of the United States, to be exempt from State laws regarding gun control that are enacted by the elected representatives of any of our several and sovereign States; for Persons, specifically, unconnected with militia service.

Here it is for easier understanding.

This is the specifically enumerated End for which the proper Means may be Necessary.

This is the Means to achieve the specifically enumerated End; my friend.

Under what Conditions in our Republic, may "the two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms" be abandoned in favor of fallacy due to recourse to a vacuum of special pleading on the part of gun lovers?

In my opinion, our Founding Fathers were much wiser than their Posterity and an Elder generation, in this Case.

 

This entire post is a strawman and has effect on my argument. You remain refuted