MikeyW. Shows his ignorance again!

Mikey, what part of “you are a dumbfuck” don’t you understand?

Mikey: #10 by mike w. at January 21st, 2010

From Justice Breyer’s dissent, which also came to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

But hey, you anti-gun folks can continue to deny obvious truths. It’s not surprising you deny facts when they destroy your entire belief system.

Mikey, Mikey, it really helps when you make an argument to use something that supports your assertion. You make a piss poor argument when what you quote shows that you don’t know what you are talking about. You are so fucking thick that you miss that Breyers says “I take as a starting point the following four propositions“. You go on to only quote one, the one that says “individual right” and neglect the other three.

Is that because they completely contradict what you are asserting and you know that? or are you just dumb and lazy? “yep, there are the words “individual right”–that looks like a good quote to use”.

Either you didn’t really read what you were quoting, didn’t understand what you read, dishonest, or are just a plain off dumbfuck. I go with complete and total dumbfuck. You couldn’t be clever enough to be dishonest.

Which gets to my reply:

#11 by Laci the Dog at January 21st, 2010
Mikey, once again you prove you are lazy and didn’t read what you quote:

“I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.”
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939); see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178.
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897); ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court).”

Stop wasting my time.

The only thing you prove is that you are an ignorant time waster.

So, I will ignore you. Bye-Bye!

Mikey, of course, didn’t read the opinion. At least he got through the first couple of sentences of Justice Stevens Opinion. But that had taxed his brain.

He didn’t even bother with reading Breyer’s opinion, which starts:

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.
We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment. The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not.

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.
The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

Mikey just sees the words “individual right” and it makes him salavate. He doesn’t bother with trying to understand what he is reading. Otherwise, he wouldn’t go off and show the world what a dumbfuck he is.

It’s not bigotry, Mikey, you really are a complete and total dumbfuck. Which is why I don’t really care what you lot think of me.

My advice, Mikey, use a dictionary for those words of more than a couple syllables that are hard for you to understand.

Learning to read also helps.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: