Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[Bikenut]

Brackets indicate words outside of a quote. This is common in English, especially news articles where words or phrases that weren't originaly said are inserted to give the reader clarity. You don't even understand basic grammar yet you think you understand the second amendment.

It's "shall not be infringed" not "shal not be limited".


That would include a number of posters on either side of the issue. If you don't like being called an idiot, then stop being an idiot.

The fact remains.. you changed the wording inside a quote. Had you wished to respond to what I said you would have quoted what I said and then responded to that separately. Your transparent attempt to imply that you were quoting me when you were inserting your own words is blatantly obvious and dishonest.

Yes, it is "shall not be infringed"... and the definition of "infringe" is:

[URL="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/"]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/[/URL]

infringe
-snip-
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:-snip-
Bold added by me for emphasis...

There it is in plain black and white ...... doesn't matter that the plain definition doesn't fit your beliefs. Facts are simply facts.

And again, those who resort to insults and ridicule have ................................... nothing.

 

[Blueshell]

The fact remains.. you changed the wording inside a quote.

Yup, and I made no effort to hide it.

Get used to it.

 

[Blueshell]

The fact remains.. you changed the wording inside a quote. Had you wished to respond to what I said you would have quoted what I said and then responded to that separately. Your transparent attempt to imply that you were quoting me when you were inserting your own words is blatantly obvious and dishonest.

Yes, it is "shall not be infringed"... and the definition of "infringe" is:

[URL="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/"]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/[/URL]

infringe
-snip-
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:-snip-
Bold added by me for emphasis...

There it is in plain black and white ...... doesn't matter that the plain definition doesn't fit your beliefs. Facts are simply facts.

Limits that encroach. Limits that undermine.

Not all limits.

The second amendment does not say "congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms". You might have an argument if it did.

I know you desperately wish your opinion were true, but isn't. There have always been limits on every right.

 

[Blueshell]

And again, those who resort to insults and ridicule have ................................... nothing.

Another opinion of yours proven wrong. The facts are on my side and I insult you. Win/win.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
The fact remains.. you changed the wording inside a quote.

Yup, and I made no effort to hide it.

Get used to it.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the attitude (and level of honesty) of someone who thinks they should be the one who tells everyone else what limits/infringements upon rights are Ok.

In the future I would suggest folks look carefully upon any quotes posted by Blueshell to see if there have been any word changes or word manipulations...

Once again I will say:
All that is necessary is to engage an anti gunner, a would be controller of rights, a believer in imposing infringements/limits upon others, in conversation and just let them out themselves.

 

[Blueshell]

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the attitude (and level of honesty) of someone who thinks they should be the one who tells everyone else what limits/infringements upon rights are Ok.

In the future I would suggest folks look carefully upon any quotes posted by Blueshell to see if there have been any word changes or word manipulations...

Once again I will say:
All that is necessary is to engage an anti gunner, a would be controller of rights, a believer in imposing infringements/limits upon others, in conversation and just let them out themselves.

You must know a lot of anti-gunners who want machineguns legalized, 99% of all gun free zones abolished, the ATF abolished, and the Gun Control Act repealed like I do.

Advocating you secure your firearms from unauthorized use does not make one anti-gun.

Accusing someone of being anti-gun for advocating you secure your firearms from unauthorized use does make you an idiot.

 

[Blueshell]

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the attitude (and level of honesty) of someone who thinks they should be the one who tells everyone else what limits/infringements upon rights are Ok.

In the future I would suggest folks look carefully upon any quotes posted by Blueshell to see if there have been any word changes or word manipulations...

Once again I will say:
All that is necessary is to engage an anti gunner, a would be controller of rights, a believer in imposing infringements/limits upon others, in conversation and just let them out themselves.

'Child Endangerment' isn't even a gun control law.

God you're such a ******* idiot.

Cleaning chemicals, knives, swimming pools, guns, etc...encrypt your hard drive, use quality passwords, lock your front door, keep your **** secure.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the attitude (and level of honesty) of someone who thinks they should be the one who tells everyone else what limits/infringements upon rights are Ok.

In the future I would suggest folks look carefully upon any quotes posted by Blueshell to see if there have been any word changes or word manipulations...

Once again I will say:
All that is necessary is to engage an anti gunner, a would be controller of rights, a believer in imposing infringements/limits upon others, in conversation and just let them out themselves.

You must know a lot of anti-gunners who want machineguns legalized, 99% of all gun free zones abolished, the ATF abolished, and the Gun Control Act repealed like I do.

Advocating you secure your firearms from unauthorized use does not make one anti-gun.

Accusing someone of being anti-gun for advocating you secure your firearms from unauthorized use does make you an idiot.

Those who advocate limiting/infringing upon the right to keep arms in one area while touting how great their work is against a limit/infringement in a different area are still advocating for limiting/infringing upon the right to keep arms. The degree of limiting/infringing doesn't matter... advocating to limit the right to keep arms is still the attitude of an anti gunner.

I am not accusing you of anything since all that is necessary is to point out how your own posts show that you go beyond advocating for limiting/infringing and actually support having the government limit/infringe upon the right to keep arms by not allowing firearm tissue box storage devices on the free market. That IS wanting the right to keep arms infringed. And that IS the goal of an anti gunner.

You have shown many times with your own words in your own posts (that no one has changed the wording of unlike what you have dishonestly done with my post) you aren't willing to face facts but are only interested in proving that limits/infringements are Ok as long as you can use tortured logic and specious arguments to support your desire to force other people to keeping their arms in ways you personally think are "reasonable", "appropriate", and especially to you "acceptable".

And, like usual, the use of insults and/or ridicule show you have.............. nothing.

Your own posts prove the following to be true:
All that is necessary is to engage an anti gunner, a would be controller of rights, a believer in imposing infringements/limits upon others, in conversation and just let them out themselves.

 

[Blueshell]

Those who advocate limiting/infringing upon the right to keep arms in one area while touting how great their work is against a limit/infringement in a different area are still advocating for limiting/infringing upon the right to keep arms.

I don't support any infringements, soo...

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the attitude (and level of honesty) of someone who thinks they should be the one who tells everyone else what limits/infringements upon rights are Ok.

In the future I would suggest folks look carefully upon any quotes posted by Blueshell to see if there have been any word changes or word manipulations...

Once again I will say:
All that is necessary is to engage an anti gunner, a would be controller of rights, a believer in imposing infringements/limits upon others, in conversation and just let them out themselves.

'Child Endangerment' isn't even a gun control law.

God you're such a ******* idiot.

Cleaning chemicals, knives, swimming pools, guns, etc...encrypt your hard drive, use quality passwords, lock your front door, keep your **** secure.

More specious arguments and more insults.

No matter how much you insist on trying to diminish, demean, and marginalize me with insults and ridicule you have, with your own posts, shown yourself to be willing to limit/infringe upon the right to keep arms as long as you consider such limits/infringements to be "acceptable".

But for some reason you cannot resist proving...
All that is necessary is to engage an anti gunner, a would be controller of rights, a believer in imposing infringements/limits upon others, in conversation and just let them out themselves.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
The fact remains.. you changed the wording inside a quote. Had you wished to respond to what I said you would have quoted what I said and then responded to that separately. Your transparent attempt to imply that you were quoting me when you were inserting your own words is blatantly obvious and dishonest.

Yes, it is "shall not be infringed"... and the definition of "infringe" is:

Oxford Dictionaries - Dictionary, Thesaurus, & Grammar

infringe
-snip-
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:-snip-
Bold added by me for emphasis...

There it is in plain black and white ...... doesn't matter that the plain definition doesn't fit your beliefs. Facts are simply facts.

Limits that encroach. Limits that undermine.

Not all limits.

The second amendment does not say "congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms". You might have an argument if it did.

I know you desperately wish your opinion were true, but isn't. There have always been limits on every right.

It doesn't say limits that encroach or limits that undermine... it says...

"Act so as to limit"

And the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" which means the government shall not pass any law that infringes (acts so as to limit) the right to keep and bear arms.

I know you desperately want your opinion to be true but plain definitions (facts) show the fallacies in your arguments. And your own posts show (to everyone reading this discussion) you do not understand what a right is nor do you understand the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And again, those who resort to insults and ridicule have ................................... nothing.

Another opinion of yours proven wrong. The facts are on my side and I insult you. Win/win.

Are you aware the use of insults is the tactic of someone who cannot support their argument with facts and only hopes to discredit the opposition?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Those who advocate limiting/infringing upon the right to keep arms in one area while touting how great their work is against a limit/infringement in a different area are still advocating for limiting/infringing upon the right to keep arms.

I don't support any infringements, soo...

You have stated that you support limits.

I have presented plain definitions that show limits are infringements.

Those who support limits support infringements since limits and infringements are the same thing.

No amount of insults or specious arguments can change those facts.

 

[JaySoup]

Having stuff from Tactical Walls is useful but its not a thing to own if you have little kids in your house.

 

[Blueshell]

More specious arguments and more insults.

No matter how much you insist on trying to diminish, demean, and marginalize me with insults and ridicule you have, with your own posts, shown yourself to be willing to limit/infringe upon the right to keep arms as long as you consider such limits/infringements to be "acceptable".

But for some reason you cannot resist proving...
All that is necessary is to engage an anti gunner, a would be controller of rights, a believer in imposing infringements/limits upon others, in conversation and just let them out themselves.

Limit, yes. Infringe, no.

 

[Blueshell]

It doesn't say limits that encroach or limits that undermine... it says...

"Act so as to limit"

And the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" which means the government shall not pass any law that infringes (acts so as to limit) the right to keep and bear arms.

I know you desperately want your opinion to be true but plain definitions (facts) show the fallacies in your arguments. And your own posts show (to everyone reading this discussion) you do not understand what a right is nor do you understand the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

Read your own words. The amendment says "shal not be infringed". The amendment does not say "shal not be limited".

The people who wrote that amendment supported a verity of limits such as a minimum age and storage of militia weapons in the church, and a ban against criminals owning firearms.

 

[Blueshell]

Are you aware the use of insults is the tactic of someone who cannot support their argument with facts and only hopes to discredit the opposition?

It's not a tactic. It's just an insult.

Idiot.

 

[Blueshell]

You have stated that you support limits.

I have presented plain definitions that show limits are infringements.

Those who support limits support infringements since limits and infringements are the same thing.

No amount of insults or specious arguments can change those facts.

Your definitions do not say all limits are infringements.

To illustrate how exactly your reading of that definition is incorrect, I've cited Supreme Court rulings clerifying it, I've cited verious limits the authors of that amendment placed on the right at that time, and I've cited the exact English law from the 1600s of which our second amendment comes from.

Not all limits are infringements.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
More specious arguments and more insults.

No matter how much you insist on trying to diminish, demean, and marginalize me with insults and ridicule you have, with your own posts, shown yourself to be willing to limit/infringe upon the right to keep arms as long as you consider such limits/infringements to be "acceptable".

But for some reason you cannot resist proving...
All that is necessary is to engage an anti gunner, a would be controller of rights, a believer in imposing infringements/limits upon others, in conversation and just let them out themselves.

Limit, yes. Infringe, no.

Read your own words. The amendment says "shal not be infringed". The amendment does not say "shal not be limited".

The people who wrote that amendment supported a verity of limits such as a minimum age and storage of militia weapons in the church, and a ban against criminals owning firearms.

Say what you will you still cannot deny the plain wording of:

infringe - definition of infringe in English from the Oxford dictionary

infringe
-snip-
2Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
Bold added by me for emphasis.

 

[Blueshell]

Say what you will you still cannot deny:

infringe - definition of infringe in English from the Oxford dictionary

infringe
-snip-
2Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
Bold added by me for emphasis.

I never denied the definition.

I said you're inferring words that clearly are not there.

There is a difference between defining the bounderies of a right and undermining that right.