The Right to Bear Arms [Archive]

palani

25th February 2013, 12:25 PM

The first part of the second amendment is about the militia so using context clues "arms" are weapons. Sure they could argue otherwise but it doesn't make much sense.

Militia generally take the field under battle flags. Coats of arms were used to tell the enemy from the non-enemy. The feudal system ran for a good 400-500 years in England as a result of William the Conqueror taking out King Harold and the French imported many 'innovations' into the English language that still are being worked out.

palani

25th February 2013, 12:27 PM

Really?

The right to bear flags shall not be infringed? Yep, let's put that in the Bill of Rights. Seems that would fall under the First Amendment...

More than that. You have a right to act as a prosecutor in federal court in the NAME of the United States. No need to try to convince anyone else that a crime exists. File the paperwork in federal court and then YOU prosecute it AS the United States. You have a right to use the seal.

midnight rambler

25th February 2013, 12:34 PM

More than that. You have a right to act as a prosecutor in federal court in the NAME of the United States. No need to try to convince anyone else that a crime exists. File the paperwork in federal court and then YOU prosecute it AS the United States. You have a right to use the seal.

That's what the Private Attorney General stuff is all about (what Rod Class is doing).

palani

25th February 2013, 12:39 PM

That's what the Private Attorney General stuff is all about (what Rod Class is doing).

Could be. Maybe this is where this 'right' comes from. Can you act diplomatically for the United States? Why not?

palani

25th February 2013, 05:01 PM

The right to bear arms in England is by grant from the crown

http://i49.tinypic.com/2ic71is.jpg

The British must be laughing their butts off at the ignorance of the poor colonials with their 2nd amendment proclamation. Perhaps the grant is the license?

palani

25th February 2013, 05:32 PM

Uncle Salty

25th February 2013, 06:15 PM

Arms obviously has two distinct meanings. That is not in dispute. One meaning for arms is that related to a flag or family logo.

Arms also means weapons.

When it comes to the second amendment, when you read the history of the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers, it is clear they are speaking of weapons, not flags or family logos.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

Maybe Palani you could investigate who this 'Bill' person is in the Bill of Rights? I mean Bill has several meanings and maybe the Bill of Rights is really referring to some colonial cat named Bill? That is about as logical as your arms argument!!

palani

25th February 2013, 06:38 PM

when you read the history of the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers, it is clear they are speaking of weapons, not flags or family logos. Yes, I agree, misdirection is frequently a tool used. When words have more than one meaning you are expected to choose the meaning more familiar with you. Colonials had little experience in titles of nobility.

Another example of misdirection can be found in the 14th amendment, where the U.S. states that they will not be responsible for debts incurred in insurrection. You are of course expected to believe that this insurrection discussed was known as the civil war. However in legal notices timing is everything. You cannot deny a debt that you owe PRIOR to the printing of the legal notice.

Maybe Palani you could investigate who this 'Bill' person is in the Bill of Rights? I mean Bill has several meanings and maybe the Bill of Rights is really referring to some colonial cat named Bill? That is about as logical as your arms argument!!
My comments are intended for those with open minds. Maybe you just ought to stop reading if you have no ability to comprehend? You already know everything so what have you to gain by reading the comments and observations of others?

palani

25th February 2013, 06:39 PM

Could it be that another arm in the U.S. is a title of honor given to BAR attorney's ... aka 'esquires'?

Heimdhal

25th February 2013, 08:21 PM

Im with uncle salty on this one and think arms meaning "heraldry" is a reach for the exact same reason, and some others, that he gave.

Uncle Salty

25th February 2013, 11:14 PM

My comments are intended for those with open minds. Maybe you just ought to stop reading if you have no ability to comprehend? You already know everything so what have you to gain by reading the comments and observations of others?

I have an open mind, but in the context that the Second Amendment was written and all supporting documents of that time in reference to said amendment, it is absurd to think that 'arms' meant anything other than a weapon such as a rifle or musket and 'arms' had absolutely nothing to do with a flag or coat of arms.

I am open minded to the point of absurdity.

Again, who is this 'Bill' that they refer to in the Bill of Rights? Was he a short man? A fat man? Just as absurd, methinks to pose those questions as your supposition referring to arms as a flag or anything other than a weapon.

palani

26th February 2013, 05:00 AM

Consider the original 13th amendment (called the TITLES OF NOBILITY amendment). It's purpose was to cancel the 2nd amendment which is ONLY about authorizing these titles of nobility.

palani

26th February 2013, 05:08 AM

I have an open mind

Then consider that the right of self-defense is so basic to the rights of man that it requires no documentation. Basic rights are not guaranteed by the constitution because they are BASIC. You have no right to breath in the constitution because it would be considered childish to proclaim such a universal right.

This recent controversy over gun grabbing has less to do with a 2nd amendment right than a violation of this universal right to be able to defend yourself.

Try to overcome your early programming. They are only words. Words are symbols. Symbols are heraldry.

palani

27th February 2013, 03:27 PM

http://i49.tinypic.com/8wmkpg.jpg

From 'the first part of the institutes of the law of England'

http://books.google.com/books?id=NOgyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA210&dq=right+to+bear+arms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=w5MuUcj9H8T1qAHD74DABQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=right%20to%20bear%20arms&f=false

palani

15th March 2013, 03:41 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeper_of_the_Seals

The United States Secretary of State is the official keeper of the Great Seal of the United States,[2] and the seal may only be affixed to instruments as provided by law or by authorization of the President.[3] Unlike the Great Seals listed above, the Great Seal is the primary graphical emblem of the United States and is used equivalently to a coat of arms.

The seals of individual U.S. states are typically the responsibility of the State Secretary of State.

palani

15th March 2013, 03:58 AM

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Official.Crit#toc1

Those who argue that the arms are unofficial maintain that there has never been a piece of legislation stating in so many words that “the arms of the United States of America are…” whatever. This reflects a misreading of the legislative language, which must be understood in the context of the clear legislative intent embedded in the records of the three design committees.

The first committee charged with developing a seal started its report by stating that “The great Seal sh[oul]d on one side have the Arms of the United States of America, which arms should be as follows…” Both of its successor committees took that understanding as their starting point. The second committee, for example, recommended, “On one Side the Arms of the United States, as follows...” It was no longer a question of whether the obverse of the seal would consist of the arms, but what the arms would look like.

The third committee’s report, prepared by William Barton, is headed, “Device for an Armorial Atchievement & Reverse of a Great Seal, for the United States of North America.” This phraseology suggests that the third committee, like its predecessors, understood designing of the seal to consist of two parts: (1) the arms of the United States, and (2) the reverse of the great seal of the United States. Such an interpretation is borne out by the way Barton captioned the blazon of the final design when it was submitted for approval: “Device for an Armorial Atchievement for the United States of North-America.” In this document, there was no need to refer to the reverse, as only the obverse—the armorial achievement, or coat of arms—was being described, the reverse remaining as recommended by the third committee. The term “armorial achievement” and indeed the specific word “arms” both appear in the final legislative record, the journal of proceedings prepared by Charles Thomson. Obviously, this is a coat of arms, and obviously it was approved by the Continental Congress as a coat of arms.

palani

15th March 2013, 04:04 AM

Arms and people exercising their 2nd amendment right to bear them
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Armorial.List
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Armorial/th100---Snyder_ahs_01.jpg.jpg
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Armorial.GarrisonJ
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Armorial/th100---Dempster_ahs_l.jpg.jpg
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Armorial/th100---Glass_ahs_l.jpg.jpg
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Armorial/th100---ffffff--Entzminger01.png.jpg
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Armorial/th100---Marcenaro_ahs_l.jpg.jpg
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Armorial/th100---ffffff--McCartney_ahs_l6.jpg.jpg
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Armorial/th100---schweitzerR_ahs_1.jpg.jpg

7th trump

15th March 2013, 12:24 PM

http://i46.tinypic.com/1pchn6.jpg

An example of an arm in the U.S. of A. is a military officer's commission, the part that says he is 'a gentleman by act of congress'. The commission does not expire with a discharge from service. Except I doubt that there is an inheritance vested in the following generation.

1. Any proof that "an example of an arm" is an officers commission or are we again having to take your interpretation as "bonified" evidence?

2. Are you positive its not the "US" rather then the "USofA"?

And I don't want to hear you say anything about keeping an "open mind".

Uncle Salty

15th March 2013, 01:11 PM

Uncle Salty

15th March 2013, 01:13 PM

Then consider that the right of self-defense is so basic to the rights of man that it requires no documentation. Basic rights are not guaranteed by the constitution because they are BASIC. You have no right to breath in the constitution because it would be considered childish to proclaim such a universal right.

This recent controversy over gun grabbing has less to do with a 2nd amendment right than a violation of this universal right to be able to defend yourself.

Try to overcome your early programming. They are only words. Words are symbols. Symbols are heraldry.

Really? I mean is there no more basic right than speech? Than talking? Yet that is explicitly documented in the First Amendment.

You are just digging a deeper hole with this whole coat of arms and the 2A. Just give up. You have been pwned.

palani

15th March 2013, 03:30 PM

Really? I mean is there no more basic right than speech? Than talking? Yet that is explicitly documented in the First Amendment.

You are just digging a deeper hole with this whole coat of arms and the 2A. Just give up. You have been pwned.

Your position is that there is no right to breath because it is not 'granted' in the constitution?

To these people 240 years ago the right to self-defense was so basic that it would not even have to be shown. People would think it strange that the right to defend oneself had to be documented. The 2nd amendment as interpreted by the majority would seem to be just such a self-defense clause.

No ... it makes more sense that the right being recognized by the 2nd amendment is that of heraldic devices and titles of nobility. These sort of things would not be available to those in power otherwise and they needed some window dressing to confuse the masses.

palani

15th March 2013, 03:50 PM

You make me laugh. The right to bear 'arms' as described above would be covered under the First Amendment as free speech. Ha ha ha.

Think about it. Should the 2nd amendment be as I suggest then the basis for government meddling in firearms evaporates. A man can take whatever is handy as a weapon for his own defense without having to refer to a government list of approved self-defense things.

Uncle Salty

15th March 2013, 04:02 PM

Think about it. Should the 2nd amendment be as I suggest then the basis for government meddling in firearms evaporates. A man can take whatever is handy as a weapon for his own defense without having to refer to a government list of approved self-defense things.

But the 2nd Amendment is not as you suggest. That is the point. Arms in the second amendment refers to arms for defense, not coat of arms. You can wish it means as you like but that does not make it a reality.

Can you cite one case in American law where anyone has ever mentioned coat of arms in reference to the 2A? Why would they? It would be a First Amendment issue. Can you not see that?

This is just silliness. You are using one meaning of the word arms to substitute for the intended meaning of the word arms and playing a semantic game that is a total fail. But hey, there are worse things to do with one's time.

palani

15th March 2013, 04:18 PM

But the 2nd Amendment is not as you suggest. That is the point.

I don't know that. You don't know that. Should I have ANY rights they are MY rights and I know what they are. If I didn't then they wouldn't be RIGHTS. Under this circumstance they might better be described as SUGGESTIONS or OPINIONS.

My list of RIGHTS exceeds 1,100 and each can be articulated. They are not subject to someone else interpreting them.

7th trump

15th March 2013, 04:38 PM

Just do as Uncle Salty suggests and give up Palani!
Not once have you ever given any number of theory's you post on this forum one simple base in law.....hence why you see judge rule the plaintif is "baseless" and "frivolous".
You are out far in left field where nobody can see you.....hell they cant even hear you!

Yep...........Palani keep on visiting those other amature law forums where all the arm chair lawyer wantabee's reside concocting wild theories from not understanding law and pretty soon nobody is going to take you seriously....you've completely blew up your creditability.

I said it first....i've warned you about those fruit cakes you hang out with!

7th trump

15th March 2013, 04:45 PM

But the 2nd Amendment is not as you suggest. That is the point. Arms in the second amendment refers to arms for defense, not coat of arms. You can wish it means as you like but that does not make it a reality.

Can you cite one case in American law where anyone has ever mentioned coat of arms in reference to the 2A? Why would they? It would be a First Amendment issue. Can you not see that?

This is just silliness. You are using one meaning of the word arms to substitute for the intended meaning of the word arms and playing a semantic game that is a total fail. But hey, there are worse things to do with one's time.

Yep semanitcs indeed!
I was going to ask palani why hes using a definition of a foreign countries legal system. But I figured he'd accuse me of something really silly and tell me that I need to "keep an open mind" while studiously accusing me of being stupid for not understanding why a foreign definition of a term should be used to interpret the US Constitution.
Bottom line is you cant reason with insanity.

palani

15th March 2013, 05:30 PM

The definition is the law of the Law.

7th trump

16th March 2013, 04:02 AM

The definition is the law of the Law.
How is that working out for you palani?
I bet not very good judging from your degree of self-inflicted confusion.
If you stop acting like a political correct lawyer who's trying to never get caught contradicting himself you just might some day "understand" a few things.

Do you ever wake up sober?

palani

16th March 2013, 05:32 AM

Do you ever wake up sober?

Did you get your HOT meal this morning?

7th trump

16th March 2013, 07:31 AM

Did you get your HOT meal this morning?

Couldn't have admitted any better you're clueless palani.

You're comment also solidifies you really don't read the statutes to understand the law itself........what a tard.

palani

16th March 2013, 08:00 AM

Couldn't have admitted any better you're clueless palani.

You're comment also solidifies you really don't read the statutes to understand the law itself........what a tard.

Closed minds are pathetic aren't they? When you choose to not use the resources you have been granted what makes you believe reading is an asset when the author is corrupt? Did you know that the right of clergy was granted to scribes?

7th trump

17th March 2013, 07:46 AM

Closed minds are pathetic aren't they? When you choose to not use the resources you have been granted what makes you believe reading is an asset when the author is corrupt? Did you know that the right of clergy was granted to scribes?

My mind isnt closed at all. Its so opened that I dont have a biased interpretation when reading the tax laws or any laws for that matter.
You palani interpret laws to say what you want them to say based on soe false beleive.
The tax laws are not corrupt....what is corrupt is when someone who doesnt understand the laws.

palani

17th March 2013, 08:08 AM

what is corrupt is when someone who doesnt understand the laws.

The law requires that states only make gold or silver a tender of payment.

Why are you paying them anything else?

Dogman

17th March 2013, 08:10 AM

Will you two just quit the shit?

Get a room and do what you want, both of you are adults????? I hope!

But I and others do wonder!

palani

17th March 2013, 08:15 AM

1. Any proof that "an example of an arm" is an officers commission or are we again having to take your interpretation as "bonified" evidence?

'Gentleman by act of Congress' is the status reserved for officers of the military.

http://i48.tinypic.com/34644sm.jpg

palani

17th March 2013, 08:21 AM

http://i46.tinypic.com/35irdra.jpg

palani

17th March 2013, 08:22 AM

Will you two just quit the shit?

Please don't interfere with my sock puppet aka 7th trump

7th trump

17th March 2013, 08:22 AM

Will you two just quit the shit?

Get a room and do what you want, both of you are adults????? I hope!

But I and others do wonder!

No I wont quit...this idiot is passing off unfounded theories as if its law. Hes basically leading everyone down a prime rose path of bullshit.

7th trump

17th March 2013, 08:26 AM

'Gentleman by act of Congress' is the status reserved for officers of the military.

http://i48.tinypic.com/34644sm.jpg
Seriously palani?
I always have to question your intend when you dont provide proof.
Knight's big and small huh?
We dont have a system of Knights here in the United States of America palani!

You know fully well this means absolutely nothing without a link to where you got to verify its origin and intend.
For all we know this could be a peice of writing that applies to English (most likely), Spanish, German, French, Russian, ect law.

palani

17th March 2013, 08:28 AM

Seriously
You know fully well this means absolutely nothing without a link to where you got to verify its origin and intend.
For all we know this could be a peice of writing that applies to Spanish, German, French, Russian law.

Thought you were capable of reading threads on this forum. Apparently not.
http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?68072-Esquire-Who-They-Serve

Dogman

17th March 2013, 08:35 AM

No I wont quit...this idiot is passing off unfounded theories as if its law. Hes basically leading everyone down a prime rose path of bullshit.

Oh I agree totally!

It's just that the two of yours squabling reminds me of two old farts going after it over nothing, (or in this case something) but YOU 7th hold the high ground on this one!

Anything posted on this board by ONE individual about law should be taken with a grain of salt.

And for DAM sure anything posted by Palani in these modern times one needs at minimum a truckload of salt, and for sure not to act on any of his "advice" or you probably will end up in jail.

Come to think about it there are a couple of others here, that if you do what they suggest you will find yourself in a steel/concrete room with no view.

You two keep Squabbling on!

4588

palani

17th March 2013, 09:30 AM

for sure not to act on any of his "advice" or you probably will end up in jail.

I don't recall giving advice. Could you show me where I have done so and I will retract it immediately as I am not licensed to advise.

Dogman

17th March 2013, 10:02 AM

I don't recall giving advice. Could you show me where I have done so and I will retract it immediately as I am not licensed to advise.

Ok, you maybe right, but a bunch of your posts do sorta "hint" but mostly refrer to old dead laws that probably were the root of what we are living under today.

Still a grain (or truckload) of salt needs to be taken on what you infer in some of your posts.

palani

17th March 2013, 10:42 AM

Still a grain (or truckload) of salt needs to be taken on what you infer in some of your posts.

No posts ... seeds. Properly placed they grow into ideas, thoughts and beliefs. Salt helps nothing grow and actually inhibits growth. You need fertilizer for growth.

As the plant springs from, and could not be without, the seed, so every act of a man springs from the hidden seeds of thought, and could not have appeared without them. This applies equally to those acts called "spontaneous" and "unpremeditated" as to those, which are deliberately executed.

palani

23rd June 2013, 07:39 AM

From 'A New Law Dictionary' by Giles Jacob, MDCCL

http://i40.tinypic.com/jt78ub.jpg

JohnQPublic

23rd June 2013, 08:07 AM

Consider the original 13th amendment (called the TITLES OF NOBILITY amendment). It's purpose was to cancel the 2nd amendment which is ONLY about authorizing these titles of nobility.

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them"

Show this to Sir George Bush, Sir Colin Powell, etc.

palani

29th September 2013, 04:58 PM

So you really believe the second amendment is about a coat of arms huh palani?

You have an unlimited right to self defense. You would prefer to change this to a regulated right to a limited self defense? Or would you prefer to believe that the 2nd amendment is not about self-defense at all but rather a feudal system concept regarding heraldic devices?

My preference is to believe my right to self defense is unlimited and the 2nd amendment is about a completely different topic altogether. You got anything to rebut that belief? [something original and not 200 years of rhetoric intended to blind you is preferable]

palani

29th September 2013, 05:00 PM

Show this to Sir George Bush, Sir Colin Powell, etc.[/SIZE][/FONT]
A sheriff is an esquire of a higher degree than a lawyer. Not only that but he retains this title even after leaving the office.

If you don't know the pecking order then how do you know who to place below the salt at the dinner table?

7th trump

29th September 2013, 06:09 PM

You have an unlimited right to self defense. You would prefer to change this to a regulated right to a limited self defense? Or would you prefer to believe that the 2nd amendment is not about self-defense at all but rather a feudal system concept regarding heraldic devices?

My preference is to believe my right to self defense is unlimited and the 2nd amendment is about a completely different topic altogether. You got anything to rebut that belief? [something original and not 200 years of rhetoric intended to blind you is preferable]

Prove to me without a doubt the 2nd amendment isn't about a coat of arms?

The burden is on you, not me or anyone else, to prove.
Come on palani show everyone the proof, the evidence, hard facts....anything!
Otherwise the 200 years trumps your mental conspiratist disorder.

If you cannot........go see a doctor!

palani

29th September 2013, 06:48 PM

Prove to me without a doubt the 2nd amendment isn't about a coat of arms?

Haven't you phrased your question improperly? Why should I prove that which I deny? To support my contention I REPRINT the location of the book which you are direct to read from cover to cover .... from the OP

http://books.google.com/books?id=CcQrAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=arms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IW4pUZGrOsqW2QWCroHICQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBTgK

But not to be concerned. You are not intended to recognize truth where truth might be found. Why is that? Because

Wise men are instructed by reason;
Men of less understanding, by experience;
The most ignorant, by necessity;
The beasts by nature.
Letters to Atticus[?], Marcus Tullius Cicero

7th trump

29th September 2013, 06:57 PM

Haven't you phrased your question improperly? Why should I prove that which I deny? To support my contention I REPRINT the location of the book which you are direct to read from cover to cover .... from the OP

http://books.google.com/books?id=CcQrAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=arms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IW4pUZGrOsqW2QWCroHICQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBTgK

But not to be concerned. You are not intended to recognize truth where truth might be found. Why is that? Because
No I didn't phrase my question improperly.
You are implying the second amendment is about a coat of arms and not about protecting yourself with a weapon.
Prove this implication.
Otherwise its all horse biscuits and the last 200 years prove you wrong once again.

A wise man could prove his stance on a subject...yet all we get out of you is more of this lawyerism side step maneuvering you are quite known for.
Actually palani a wise man wouldn't open his mouth up first without having the proof needed to back his mouth.

palani

30th September 2013, 05:40 AM

No I didn't phrase my question improperly.
Nonsense. But then I would expect no less from someone who claims to find reason in statute law.

Your question: Prove to me without a doubt the 2nd amendment isn't about a coat of arms?

Had your question been phrased properly:Prove to me without a doubt the 2nd amendment is about a coat of arms?

I have no idea why you made this a question as your sentence appears more in the nature of a demand.

You are implying the second amendment is about a coat of arms and not about protecting yourself with a weapon. I am implying nothing. I have made a judicial determination that has application only to me and any others who choose to see the reason for this decision.

Prove this implication. You have the URL of the book that provides the reasoning. Don't be ashamed that you are unable to read or comprehend it. You are not meant to.

Otherwise its all horse biscuits and the last 200 years prove you wrong once again. Time is a proof? See now to me that is IRRATIONAL but certainly consistent with your other statements. I'll give you a concrete example. On another thread you made an attack based upon this very subject but showed sui juris forum as the source of your argument. Yet you had responded previously to THIS VERY THREAD. Time is not your friend because you had forgotten the very existence of this thread and, as proof of this, I give you your previous posts on it.

A wise man could prove his stance on a subject...yet all we get out of you is more of this lawyerism side step maneuvering you are quite known for.
Actually palani a wise man wouldn't open his mouth up first without having the proof needed to back his mouth.
Would you prefer to light a candle or curse the darkness?

7th trump

30th September 2013, 07:55 AM

Nonsense. But then I would expect no less from someone who claims to find reason in statute law.

Your question: Prove to me without a doubt the 2nd amendment isn't about a coat of arms?

Had your question been phrased properly:Prove to me without a doubt the 2nd amendment is about a coat of arms?

I have no idea why you made this a question as your sentence appears more in the nature of a demand.

I am implying nothing. I have made a judicial determination that has application only to me and any others who choose to see the reason for this decision.

You have the URL of the book that provides the reasoning. Don't be ashamed that you are unable to read or comprehend it. You are not meant to.

Time is a proof? See now to me that is IRRATIONAL but certainly consistent with your other statements. I'll give you a concrete example. On another thread you made an attack based upon this very subject but showed sui juris forum as the source of your argument. Yet you had responded previously to THIS VERY THREAD. Time is not your friend because you had forgotten the very existence of this thread and, as proof of this, I give you your previous posts on it.

Would you prefer to light a candle or curse the darkness?
Ahhhh.....theres what I was looking for.
You play word games that only you know the rules to and change the rules as you see fit to suit your bullshit.
You're nothing but a slithering snake.

First off dimwit....I have never said or claimed to find "reason" in statute law. Reason can be many things so what reason are you talking about?
I have always researched the statutes to find how it operate.
Secondly......this thing you call "judicial determination" is nothing more than your personal "opinion" that you are trying to convey here on this board as the truth, which it is not!
Thanks for admitting you refuse to beleive the truth to settle for your very owm "THEORY".

The 200 years of historical facts surrounding the 2nd amendment you chose to ignore over your theory....stands!
You failed to provide any documentation your theory has any merit............you're a conspiratist fool palani which you are proving more and more!
Over time you'll completely destroy your creditability which is evident from the backlash you are receiving.

palani

30th September 2013, 08:15 AM

You play word games that only you know the rules to and change the rules as you see fit to suit your bullshit.
Right. It's called ENGLISH.

You're nothing but a slithering snake. Accepted upon proof of claim that you know what a snake is.

I have never said or claimed to find "reason" in statute law. Yet you bring up statute law INCESSANTLY.

Reason can be many things so what reason are you talking about? Reality. Fiction is too changeable.

I have always researched the statutes to find how it operate. Your WORLD is fiction. Statutes don't operate upon men. They operate upon fictions.

this thing you call "judicial determination" is nothing more than your personal "opinion" that you are trying to convey here on this board as the truth, which it is not! Where is it written that YOUR truth must be the same as mine?

Thanks for admitting you refuse to beleive the truth to settle for your very owm "THEORY". YOUR TRUTH? In a fictional world YOUR TRUTH is MY FICTION.

The 200 years of historical facts surrounding the 2nd amendment you chose to ignore over your theory....stands!
By believing 200 years of history are you prepared to abandon your unlimited right to self defense?

You failed to provide any documentation your theory has any merit............you're a conspiratist fool palani which you are proving more and more! You are an IDIOT who uses AD HOMENUM as an excuse to bury your head up your BUTT.

Over time you'll completely destroy your creditability which is evident from the backlash you are receiving. YOU are a backlash? You are a mistake your parents made.