Bullet makers can't keep up with demand

Oh look at genius Hambo-helper here

Any guess what Heller has to say about concealed carry, goblin or you "don't know"?

:korean:

I am not complaining. Quite the contrary. Just reaping my victory, dipshit.
Btw - are you saying that I employ ad hominem attacks? If so please link to one pps: lol

How about you, Melton? Had a chance to look over Heller yet?

Or are you still ducking this issue?

Wow. Don't disagree on constitutional theory with Chief Justice Goblin here

You have issues, that's for sure.

Hmmm...you were ready to run your mouth all night over collective vs. personal interpretations. No comment on the lie your butt-slamming-buddy was trying to tell?

A super genius constitutional expert like you should make quick work of Heller on this issue, Goblin. Why so quiet?

BTW, Two Balls...just for reference this is what a purely ad hominem attack looks like. Make a note of it

I know...maybe you need a link. Is that why you cannot answer? :toung2:

How cute n' optimistic of this cunt to find a little religion after his stupid ass was banned and expect everyone here to forget what a nasty little troll he really is.

pps:



And stop pretending you didn't get your New n' Improved Ad Hominem Lite ass kicked in this thread, you delusional rat. "victory" lol.

no link?

How so? Please explain

ok i read some of this thread but the typical fu no fu and smileys has hurt my brain
imo the bullet shortage is from bammy saying he was gona tax ammo big time
where i live everyone i mean even old ladies carry guns
myself and my daughters soccer coach are the only people i know who dont carry
everyone has gone out and bought tons of ammo to save future money
my friends who for years used to come out to my farm to shoot auto weapons said they dont want to waiste the ammo this year
these dudes would shoot for hours in the past
my town and the towns surrounding us have no violent crime
there is the typical vandalism and fist fight shit
but you never hear of hold ups or car thefts
no one wants to get filled wth lead
i remember before they passed concealed laws all the anti people had all these scare tactics and stats
it ended up being all bullshit
wow the lions won

What a stoopid cunt. Ming is once again hoisted on his own retarded petard. :hhh:

I was reading Heller last might as I always wondered about this debate. I think if the founders had wanted to limit the right to one of milita only, they would have added in the words:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people who are members of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I don't like Scalia but he seems to be right on this one. The historical discussion is pretty interesting as it goes back to the violent 1760's etc. It is intertesting to go over all that again.

Here is the link to the deicison for those who are equally demented and enjoy reading this shit:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Check yourself. Mingmend frowns upon ad hominem attacks. :burst:

You missed plenty, as usual. I am not groveling. I like my guns and I do not need to appease anyone. WQho? You, Jeton? Like I could give a shit about either of you. The point is that I disagree with the rationalization of Heller to arrive at individual. I think the collective is more in tune with the concerns contemporaneuous with the passing of the Bill of Rigths, which if you are a strict constructionist should be the main concern.

But, Heller does not ban gun ownership, and apparently this is a dictintion you cannot make and neither can Jeton. It simply held that the DC law at issue violated 2nd A analysis under this new standard, if you can call it that, which Justice Breyer pointed out is horrifically nebulous. Further, Heller specifically noted regulation is fine, and I agree with this part and I think ownership should be heavily regulated in terms of registrations. And, Jeton has yet to admit he fucked up when he stated that Heller applied some imaginary thing called "strictest structiny" when in fact the majority refused to apply any type of test. He is wrong, that's all. And, his understanding of the topic is very limited no matter how verbose he may be.

As you can see that is the only strategy Goblin has left. I love it when bullshitters are reduced to empty attacks like that.
As you can see my victory is complete. Goblin knows better than to even address the issue.

Oh wait...aren't you going to tell us how I was owned, son?

Still waiting

You lads seem confused. I asked about the Heller decision's attitude toward concealed carry restrictions. So I am on topic.

Attacks that avoid and deflect from Heller and concealed carry are ad hominem.
Goblin won't address this fact because he doesn't like that aspect of the decision and because the majority opinion proves his lover Melton to be a straight up liar.

Here is the definition so you can educate yourself twoballs. Goblin already knows that his behavior is simply the height of cowardice.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

As you can see from their performance in this thread...both Melton's and NC-Goblin's only strategy is to increase the noise-to-signal ratio to cover their lies.

Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


Especially notable is Goblin's track record on this front. Just replace the word "priest" with the word "biased" or "liberal" or "leftist" or "gun-grabber" or "activist" or "magic-negro" etc. etc. etc. and you will have over 75% of her posts verbatim.

Still can't address the 2nd Amendment?
Is this the "super genius" tact?
So far you have done nothing in this thread but call me, your Overlord, names. Funny that you could inaccurately describe that behavior in guay but when applied to yourself the deflections come fast and furious.

Now Goblin resorts to the "I know you are but what am I" defense.
We need this thread stickied.

:usa:

pps: I think I see the genesis of all the tears and deflections