Quite the opposite. I didn't start this thread. I even said above that they are not (learn to read). So why the uproar over this issue in Arizona? You're just another in the gradient of leftist posters who claim "dindu nuffin" when called on the carpet. One person makes a claim, another pops in to defend it and tries to play some tired ass plausible deniability card "I'm not the one who said that".
Here's an idea: don't interject if you don't hold that position.
I do hold the position that SB 1142 is uncons utional bull . That I didn't argue against some undefined infringement on the second amendment fervently enough to appease you is irrelevant. Chances are I didn't believe it to exceed the cons utional limits both you and I agree can be applied to the second amendment.
I will say that I never argue for stripping people who disagree with me of their rights out of spite. That's the work of an unprincipled .
There is no need to be outraged about the second amendment. I can go to Academy and buy a gun right now. Quit being a got.
And this. ing gun boys have to draw a parallel with the second amendment in every debate.
Your cherry picking of rights you need and don't need is duly noted, and you'll get what you deserve out of it.
You can march down the street and protest right now, what's your point, got?
When you rely on utility to give a about the BoR, you get what you get. This is what you get.
I'm not cherry picking rights. We both agree the BoR is not unlimited. We just disagree on where those limits should be applied.
Are you ok with infringing on the second amendment rights of the mentally ill?
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 02-26-2017 at 07:19 PM.
Like you, for example?
Clever.
You won't answer the question because you know utility must be applied to the BoR.
It's been fun porking you again...
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 02-26-2017 at 09:10 PM.
If utility must be applied, then I have no use for the 19th Amendment.
It's interesting that you cannot offer a take without a retraction in the form of an edit.
Utility is applied to the 19th amendment. Call all citizens vote irrespective of their sex?
Anyway, you're flailing now.
FYI - My my last edit was to correct a spelling error...agin to again. Don't read too much into it.
this got is obsessed with pointing out edits and doubleposts as if he gets consolation points in a losing argument.
edit - added " got"
^ I just noticed the call/can typo, but I'll leave it. Don't need DMC reading anything into it.
Utility only applies to the individual. You don't find utility in the 2nd Amendment because you're not a gun owner. If you are a gun owner, it's apathetic in nature, therefore you don't feel compelled to defend it. I am male so the 19th Amendment doesn't' apply to me personally, but I would still defend it since I defend the BoR without cherry picking which amendment I feel is outdated and therefore irrelevant.
Maybe you should proofread your post before you post. You know, think first, type next, verify and submit.
you're all over the place. Is the bill proposed in the OP uncons utional or not?
I will absolutely defend any fundamental right that I believe to be infringed upon unlawfully regardless of whether or not it personally affects me as is evidenced by the fact I'm not affected by the proposed bill in the OP.
The reality is that you're a gun boy. You drew a ty parallel because you wanted to make the thread about one of the few things you know and you've been chasing your tail and ting your pants ever since.
When you're cornered you seem to pretend to be clearing things up as if your opponent is confused. I'm not confused. I know you didn't defend the 2nd Amendment.
As for your deflection, with a new Supreme Court, I guess we'll see. Neither you nor I can do anything about it, but at least I'm not here pulling excuses out of my ass for infringing upon the 1st Amendment.
I will absolutely defend any fundamental right that I believe to be infringed upon unlawfully regardless of whether or not it personally affects me as is evidenced by the fact I'm not affected by the proposed bill in the OP.
The he reality is that liberals created a condition in politics where cons utional rights could be infringed upon by a nanny state government who has our best interests in mind. After all, you wouldn't want freedom of speech falling into the wrong hands. The pen is mightier than the sword.The he reality is that you're a gun boy. You drew a ty parallel because you wanted to make the thread about one of the few things you know and you've been chasing your tail and ting your pants ever since.
Cornered? You're delusional.When you're cornered you seem to pretend to be clearing things up as if your opponent is confused. I'm not confused. I know you didn't defend the 2nd Amendment.
As for your deflection, with a new Supreme Court, I guess we'll see. Neither you nor I can do anything about it, but at least I'm not here pulling excuses out of my ass for infringing upon the 1st Amendment.
The he reality is that liberals created a condition in politics where cons utional rights could be infringed upon by a nanny state government who has our best interests in mind. After all, you wouldn't want freedom of speech falling into the wrong hands. The pen is mightier than the sword.
Liberals suck. Blah, blah, blah.
You're spent.
Th'Pussy's typical exit strategy: claim false victory and look for easier prey
So one last thing since you're too much of a pussy to take a stance on whether the bill in the op is uncons utional; do you support the bill proposed in the op? Try to leave the second ammendment out of your thought process as you seem to be severely emotionally invested in that particular amendment.Th'Pussy's typical exit strategy: claim false victory and look for easier prey
I don't live in Arizona. You'd like to leave the 2nd Amendment out, wouldn't ya?
11 states, all red/slave, are attempting to criminalize dissent, freedom of assembly
Pussy won't take a stanceI don't live in Arizona. You'd like to leave the 2nd Amendment out, wouldn't ya?
Hey look, you made a post that's on topic! Was that so hard?
And to answer the question, the point is that this uncons utional bill would infringe upon that right to protest. got.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote