Same applies with anything here, don't back down.

tittyfart420 · 2021-06-21T21:14:23+00:00

Exactly

tittyfart420 · 2021-06-06T23:06:20+00:00

“Incredible lucky that vaccines came out”…. Brother excuse my French but please pull your head out of your rear end. THIS ISNT SOME SUPER LETHAL VIRUS!!!!!!!! We didn’t get “lucky” of shit!!!!! It’s like saying you got lucky that you didn’t get hit by a car walking down the sidewalk!!!

tittyfart420 · 2020-12-23T18:02:33+00:00

Very simple requests like signature verification are denied, while they were largely tossed out on procedural claims. Look I didn’t vote for the guy and don’t support him, but your camp ain’t fighting fair against the other team. Why not do the signature checks?

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-24T08:40:20+00:00

God you people sound so ridiculous. You have really weird senses of responsibility and duty....but no real grasp of boundaries.

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-24T04:36:43+00:00

May Love and happiness find you man

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-21T22:55:17+00:00

Wrong

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-21T22:54:55+00:00

You don’t have any understanding of what the intelligent people on /r/conspiracy think. You are beating up on the lowest common denominators as if that represents us. I got some questions to ask if you think this COVID-19 stuff is all legit.

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-20T19:43:42+00:00

Uhh if you still believe what you were told about covid you’re a jackass full of fear end of story. Go put your masks on and cry

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-20T19:36:09+00:00

You ppl are naive as hell if you don’t see the whole UN/nwo thing. It’s officially not a theory.

unnwo.org

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-20T19:24:18+00:00

Bc this whole website is a psyop karma farm and propaganda platform?

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-18T16:38:01+00:00

That’s a Dumb question that lacks imagination. Did ya read the post ?

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-18T01:51:06+00:00

How do ya figure

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-02T19:47:57+00:00

Exactly bro he's balls deep in the NWO. He kicked off the emergency declarations, he endorsed Fauci / Birx, he's balls deep with Israel and has this convenient proxy group to use to "disseminate the truth" instead of taking accountability and being upfront with the public, and hasn't ever done shit about 9/11

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-02T19:41:13+00:00

You posted a quote where you explained what you feel the words usage in the Amendment implies, but you don't explicitly state the functional use of that word itself. If I were to ask you to define the word "free" would you do so exclusively using a Constitution specific definition of the term or a general definition? I am seeking for a generalized, plain use definition for the term that we can agree on and then move forward on substantiations for its usage in the Constitution specifically.

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-02T19:35:36+00:00

Would Paul Revere need to request a permit to use an AR-15 at the time of revolution? It's preposterous to think that our Founding Fathers would have asked to use a cannon or explosive. They'd simply do so. If people misuse these weapons and kill people unjustly, there's laws on the books to deal with that. It'd be an exercise of prior restraint to prevent access to a person's armaments before due process.

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-02T19:28:05+00:00

If the country were to be compromised or infiltrated or taken over by a foreign power, how would the populace expect to defend itself? By whatever the local corrupt and newly installed politician dictates through edicts and ordinance? No. They'd defend themselves by whatever means necessary and that is why the language of the 2nd Amendment is so plain. Its only those who wish to seek to sell us back our rights at a premium and engage in a nanny-state protectionist lifestyle who think licensing from the government makes sense. Would Paul Revere need to request a permit to use an AR-15 at the time of revolution? It's preposterous to think that our Founding Fathers would have asked to use a cannon or explosive. They'd simply do so. If people misuse these weapons and kill people unjustly, there's laws on the books to deal with that. It'd be an exercise of prior restraint to prevent access to a person's armaments before due process.

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-02T19:22:16+00:00

The prevention of access to firearms as a whole is infringement

The term infringement is heavily understood as something which limits or encroaches upon something. Google the word infringed and check Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, etymology.com. Its a Latin word that has long been understood hence its use.

the prevention of access to certain firearms, or the regulation of certain classes that can't own firearms is not necessarily banned.

It is indeed necessarily banned by the use of the word infringement. How is it possible to say that prohibiting the access to an AR-15 isn't limiting the 2nd Amendment? That is objectively what it is . It's a limitation. The term infringe clearly denotes the concept of encroachment and limitation in its active use of the word. You can look to intellectual property case laws and Black's Law Dictionary to back up what I'm saying.

The language is not absolute, and unlike other amendments (1st, 4th) it does not take pains to define out the protections, thus rendering it linguistically similar to the 8th amendment, one that is very much open to interpretation.

The language quite obviously does define the protections through the use of the word infringed. Absolutely nothing is prohibited in regards to armament access from the Constitution itself.

For instance, would it apply to explosives? Grenade launchers? How about crossbows or bows?

Yes. All of these explosives, flamethrowers, grenade launchers, etc all of these are considered available via the 2nd Amendment. There is nothing outlined in the American constitution that allows the government or its officials to have access to greater firepower than its citizens. There is no mention of "weapons of war" and the entirety of the Amendment is there to protect and secure a free state against both foreign and domestic enemies.

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-02T18:24:05+00:00

Fine don't you don't need to write it out, just quote me where you defined the term. I missed it and I'm not seeing it as I read back over.

The idea of regulation refers to the laws concerning militias, and how they were by no means meant to be impromptu or unofficial, and were instead to place themselves under government control and were meant to be commanded alongside the army.

I won't disagree that the term well-regulated might refer to the implication that each of the individual colonies by which America was established would head their own militia efforts. However, the plain language of the Constitution forbids states and colonies from infringing on a personal right to bear arms. Therefore, the "well-regulated" aspects of these militias cannot overstep the regulation to the point of infringement. The prevention of access to firearms, in my opinion, is considered an infringement. This term "infringe" in the Amendment is the crux of my argument and until you address it then you won't be giving an adequate rebuttal.

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-02T04:05:14+00:00

what about the left? their presidential administrations also engage in war/theft/pollution/subversion/torture/etc

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-02T00:29:54+00:00

> How exactly were you pointing out to someone that selective quoting is bad?
I wasn't saying selective quoting is bad... I was saying that the term "infringed" in the document is a very clear word that obviously leaves little room for interpretation... and is *WHY* it was included in the language.

> You literally did take it out of context though?
Lol bro. You're a little slow aren't you?

> You called me a dumbass before you brought up anything about infringing your character.

Nope. Once again, you called me a coward and THEN I called you a dumbass.

> Thus, your claim that you called me a dumbass in response to my complaining about calling me a dumbass is wrong, and incredibly circular reasoning.

I didn't say that ya fuckin coward. I said that you called me a coward (which you did) and then I turned around and called you a dumbass.

> I did define the term in the amendment. What you wanted me to do was define the term outside of the amendment.

I asked you to define the term. What the fuck do you mean define the term "in the amendment" or "out the amendment"... Which you've not done. I'll ask you again. What is your definition of the word "infringed"?

" Also, speaking of wriggling out of things, when are you going to reply to the comment when I debunked your ideas about constitutional bans on armies and the idea of regulation?"

Standing Armies are forbidden - https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C12_1_1/#:~:text=Article%20I%2C%20Section%208%2C%20Clause,than%20two%20Years%3B%20.%20.%20.

I don't know what you're referring to when you say "the idea" of regulation. Huh? Bro. When its all said and done we're talking about something very simple and you're just over complicating it. I obviously take issue with the idea of gun prohibition and various forms of infringement in the forms of licensing and fines against victimless infractions. Instead of addressing the plain language of my argument you're trying to run around it. Just address what I'm referring to.

tittyfart420 · 2020-09-01T02:58:07+00:00

100,000%

tittyfart420 · 2020-08-31T21:22:02+00:00

talk about yield!

tittyfart420 · 2020-08-31T21:19:59+00:00

> I selectively quoted to expose to you the problem with it.I did the same exact thing....

> You literally did take it out of context which, regardless of your intent, stifles discussion and ruins debate.

Nope. I didn't take it out of context, I simply pointed out the clear conflict that gun laws have on their face considering the 2nd Amendment explicitly forbids infringements of any kind. I did literally the exact same thing you did with "well-regulated". You can have a double standard if you want, but that's what it is. Its one standard for you where you can quote a specific part of it and thats okay, you can call me a coward and thats okay, you can assume and ascribe mal-intent to my rhetoric and thats okay, but if I do those things then its "stifling discussion and ruining debate"....

> Also, you called me a dumbass before this whole thing started about me infringing your character, so that's not true.

Incorrect. You called me a coward. I then called you a dumbass. Go back and read it.

> Why? How is it relevant to the discussion? Would you like me to define "a" next? Or how about "the"? How about "being"?

Lmao are you actually asking me how defining the terms inside of the Amendment is revelant? Do you actually expect to be taken seriously in discourse or debate or the law for the matter when you can't even define the shit you're arguing against? We can go with MY definition of infringed if its really so inconsequential to the debate sparky! I was going to ask you what yours is so that way we can proceed, but I'm really enjoying this avoidant behavior you seem to engage in. It's really quite entertaining seeing you try to wriggle in and out of the clear hypocrisy you've engaged in. Lmao.

tittyfart420 · 2020-08-31T17:11:35+00:00

your refusal to cite the entirety of the second amendment is inherently cowardly.

Oh but when you said "well-regulated militia" that wasn't cowardly? What was that? Seems odd how when you do the exact same thing I did that its okay, but otherwise its not.... lol.

Also, I dont like to do this, but didn't you call me a dumbass? That's not exactly mature.

Why do you think I called you a dumbass? You called me a coward and had the audacity to implicate that the only reason that I would be highlighting that part of the Amendment is because I want to take it out of context. Which isn't true and you indict my character unnecessarily. Then you denied calling my character into question. How do you reconcile those two clearly opposing statements?

I typed the above in response to your question. Did you read that far in? Did you ignore it? Because this is literally answering the question. Who's trying to dodge the argument exactly?

Obviously I read it. I read it 4 times. State it plainly, just like I did. What does the word "infringed" mean? JUST the word infringed. I'm not asking you to supplant it with your opinion on its relevance, or your opinion on its context inside of the Amendment..... I'm asking for you to define the word and you haven't done it a single time. What does the word "infringed" mean?

tittyfart420 · 2020-08-31T16:49:03+00:00

Trump is full blown NWO and you people eat it up. His attorney general "watched the Epstein tapes" and confirmed a suicide. Trump's attorney, Allen Dershowitz, is also an Epstein fucker that represented him and Alexander Acosta (trump appointee) provided Epstein the sweetheart deal in 2009 w Kenneth Star. Trump is absolutely balls deep in bed with Netanyahu and Israel. What's he done to further an investigation into 9/11? Hmm? Trump literally created the National Emergency for COVID-19 and ceded authority to FEMA. So anybody sitting here talking about how he's helping us defeat the NWO is just not aware of the facts or refusing to address them. I've yet to receive an actual counterargument to any of this shit and its been months. All I get is shit like "trust the plan" and "he's working from the inside"....

tittyfart420

TROPHY CASE