"common Sense Gun Laws"

[Uncensored2008]

Where does it say in the constitution we cant have heavy ordinance?

It doesn't, but neither does it protect it as a right.

 

[Asclepias]

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement. Whats the difference between having a shotgun in your basement and a nuclear warhead?

Words have meanings, Asslips - which is why Ebonics is nothing other than ignorance.

"Arms" has a specific meaning, weapons which can be carried and operated by a single soldier. A nuclear warhead doesn't meet that criterion.

Does that answer what you axed?

No it doesnt. If that was true why are sawed off shotguns restricted?

 

[RKMBrown]

No,. Its not. These things are restricted because when people do those things, they DO, not might, place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Guns in my basement, any number of them, do not.

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement. Whats the difference between having a shotgun in your basement and a nuclear warhead?

A shotgun is light arms, nuclear warhead is heavy ordinance.

So why is one restricted and the other is not?

Because heavy ordinance is not protected from restriction by the federal government, as arms is. Our government, rightly or wrongly, decided to restrict things like nuclear weapons for personal use. A more detailed explanation would require us talk about what arms is... but basically it is the type of stuff carried by a foot soldier.

Where does it say in the constitution we cant have heavy ordinance?

It doesn't that's the point. The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the feds. Because it does not say arms or ordnance of any kind,... that left the hole for govco to add said restrictions not traditionally considered arms. That said the states were (prior to the 14th amendment) perfectly able to restrict arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I laugh at you.
You made a claim you know you cannot support, and then say you will stand by that claim until it is proven untrue.
I laugh at you again.

I laugh at you too. You ask for proof but restrict it but when I do the same you cant provide your proof.

Its your claim.
As you know clearly you cannot substantively support it, it remains meaningless as support for your position.

I dont need to support it.

You do it you want if to have any relevance to the conversation.

Then I see you understand your question is not relevant then. if you cant support your contention why would I waste time supporting mine?

If you want your argument to go unsupported that's fine with me.

 

[RKMBrown]

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement. Whats the difference between having a shotgun in your basement and a nuclear warhead?

Words have meanings, Asslips - which is why Ebonics is nothing other than ignorance.

"Arms" has a specific meaning, weapons which can be carried and operated by a single soldier. A nuclear warhead doesn't meet that criterion.

Does that answer what you axed?

No it doesnt. If that was true why are sawed off shotguns restricted?

They are not banned in all states. Certain states have laws restricting parameters of shotguns. For example, the PC police in this state won't let me put more than 3 shells in my shotgun outside my home.

 

[Asclepias]

Where does it say in the constitution we cant have heavy ordinance?

It doesn't, but neither does it protect it as a right.

All I have to do is call it "nuclear arms" and then its protected right?...Oh wait thats what it is called.

 

[Asclepias]

I laugh at you too. You ask for proof but restrict it but when I do the same you cant provide your proof.

Its your claim.
As you know clearly you cannot substantively support it, it remains meaningless as support for your position.

I dont need to support it.

You do it you want if to have any relevance to the conversation.

Then I see you understand your question is not relevant then. if you cant support your contention why would I waste time supporting mine?

If you want your argument to go unsupported that's fine with me.

Glad you agree that your unsupported argument was going nowhere.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No,. Its not. These things are restricted because when people do those things, they DO, not might, place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Guns in my basement, any number of them, do not.

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement.

Show how the mere presence of guns in my basement places you in the same degree of danger as someone falsely yelling fire in a theater.

Sure. Show how does the mere presence of a nuclear warhead in my basement is different from a shotgun in my basement.

I see you understand that you cannot show how how the mere presence of guns in my basement places you in the same degree of danger as someone falsely yelling fire in a theater.
Now all you have to do is admit it to yourself.

I see you are avoiding my question.

I can see you have neither the willingness nor the capacity to have a meaningful conversation on this issue.
Run along.

 

[Asclepias]

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement. Whats the difference between having a shotgun in your basement and a nuclear warhead?

A shotgun is light arms, nuclear warhead is heavy ordinance.

So why is one restricted and the other is not?

Because heavy ordinance is not protected from restriction by the federal government, as arms is. Our government, rightly or wrongly, decided to restrict things like nuclear weapons for personal use. A more detailed explanation would require us talk about what arms is... but basically it is the type of stuff carried by a foot soldier.

Where does it say in the constitution we cant have heavy ordinance?

It doesn't that's the point. The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the feds. Because it does not say arms or ordnance of any kind,... that left the hole for govco to add said restrictions not traditionally considered arms. That said the states were (prior to the 14th amendment) perfectly able to restrict arms.

But a nuclear warhead is called nuclear arms.

 

[Asclepias]

So does a person with an arsenal in their basement.

Show how the mere presence of guns in my basement places you in the same degree of danger as someone falsely yelling fire in a theater.

Sure. Show how does the mere presence of a nuclear warhead in my basement is different from a shotgun in my basement.

I see you understand that you cannot show how how the mere presence of guns in my basement places you in the same degree of danger as someone falsely yelling fire in a theater.
Now all you have to do is admit it to yourself.

I see you are avoiding my question.

I can see you have neither the willingness nor the capacity to have a meaningful conversation on this issue.
Run along.

I can see your ad homenim has come back to haunt you. That was fun making you realize that.

 

[RKMBrown]

A shotgun is light arms, nuclear warhead is heavy ordinance.

So why is one restricted and the other is not?

Because heavy ordinance is not protected from restriction by the federal government, as arms is. Our government, rightly or wrongly, decided to restrict things like nuclear weapons for personal use. A more detailed explanation would require us talk about what arms is... but basically it is the type of stuff carried by a foot soldier.

Where does it say in the constitution we cant have heavy ordinance?

It doesn't that's the point. The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the feds. Because it does not say arms or ordnance of any kind,... that left the hole for govco to add said restrictions not traditionally considered arms. That said the states were (prior to the 14th amendment) perfectly able to restrict arms.

But a nuclear warhead is called nuclear arms.

They could call them nuclear sex toys, either way it's ordnance. If you think I'm lying about arms being the arms a foot soldier has... look it up or ask for a reference. We don't hand out nuclear arms to foot soldiers.

 

[Asclepias]

So why is one restricted and the other is not?

Because heavy ordinance is not protected from restriction by the federal government, as arms is. Our government, rightly or wrongly, decided to restrict things like nuclear weapons for personal use. A more detailed explanation would require us talk about what arms is... but basically it is the type of stuff carried by a foot soldier.

Where does it say in the constitution we cant have heavy ordinance?

It doesn't that's the point. The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the feds. Because it does not say arms or ordnance of any kind,... that left the hole for govco to add said restrictions not traditionally considered arms. That said the states were (prior to the 14th amendment) perfectly able to restrict arms.

But a nuclear warhead is called nuclear arms.

They could call them nuclear sex toys, either way it's ordnance.

But its also arms. You can call a gun a weapon and its still considered arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So why is one restricted and the other is not?

Because heavy ordinance is not protected from restriction by the federal government, as arms is. Our government, rightly or wrongly, decided to restrict things like nuclear weapons for personal use. A more detailed explanation would require us talk about what arms is... but basically it is the type of stuff carried by a foot soldier.

Where does it say in the constitution we cant have heavy ordinance?

It doesn't that's the point. The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the feds. Because it does not say arms or ordnance of any kind,... that left the hole for govco to add said restrictions not traditionally considered arms. That said the states were (prior to the 14th amendment) perfectly able to restrict arms.

But a nuclear warhead is called nuclear arms.

They could call them nuclear sex toys, either way it's ordnance.

Anyone arguing nuclear weapons with any regard to the 2nd argues from ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[RKMBrown]

Because heavy ordinance is not protected from restriction by the federal government, as arms is. Our government, rightly or wrongly, decided to restrict things like nuclear weapons for personal use. A more detailed explanation would require us talk about what arms is... but basically it is the type of stuff carried by a foot soldier.

Where does it say in the constitution we cant have heavy ordinance?

It doesn't that's the point. The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the feds. Because it does not say arms or ordnance of any kind,... that left the hole for govco to add said restrictions not traditionally considered arms. That said the states were (prior to the 14th amendment) perfectly able to restrict arms.

But a nuclear warhead is called nuclear arms.

They could call them nuclear sex toys, either way it's ordnance.

But its also arms. You can call a gun a weapon and its still considered arms.

Correct. But it's not the arms covered by the 2nd amendment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

All I have to do is call it "nuclear arms" and then its protected right?...Oh wait thats what it is called.

It has to be a common weapon deployed by a single soldier.

Try again.

 

[RKMBrown]

Because heavy ordinance is not protected from restriction by the federal government, as arms is. Our government, rightly or wrongly, decided to restrict things like nuclear weapons for personal use. A more detailed explanation would require us talk about what arms is... but basically it is the type of stuff carried by a foot soldier.

Where does it say in the constitution we cant have heavy ordinance?

It doesn't that's the point. The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the feds. Because it does not say arms or ordnance of any kind,... that left the hole for govco to add said restrictions not traditionally considered arms. That said the states were (prior to the 14th amendment) perfectly able to restrict arms.

But a nuclear warhead is called nuclear arms.

They could call them nuclear sex toys, either way it's ordnance.

Anyone arguing nuclear weapons with any regard to the 2nd argues from ignorance ans/or dishnonesty.

Perhaps... a lot of people really don't get the difference between commonly used definitions of terms and legal definitions of terms.

 

[2aguy]

Moron, registration is not incompatible with the 2nd amendment if it is implemented intelligently.

As I stated, guns should not be registered as if one is applying for permission to own them, but as an informative tool so the government knows "Citizen X has "N" number of guns with these serial numbers".

Registration does not help in preventing current gang violence or mass shootings...it won't stop them in the future either...the chicago gangs killing people every day are not registering their guns, going thru background checks or taking concealed carry classes for 16 hours....

Registration is just a nice sounding, incredibly stupid idea...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where does it say in the constitution we cant have heavy ordinance?

It doesn't that's the point. The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the feds. Because it does not say arms or ordnance of any kind,... that left the hole for govco to add said restrictions not traditionally considered arms. That said the states were (prior to the 14th amendment) perfectly able to restrict arms.

But a nuclear warhead is called nuclear arms.

They could call them nuclear sex toys, either way it's ordnance.

Anyone arguing nuclear weapons with any regard to the 2nd argues from ignorance ans/or dishnonesty.

Perhaps... a lot of people really don't get the difference between commonly used definitions of terms and legal definitions of terms.

That would be "ignorance".
If the ignorance is willful, that's "dishonesty".

 

[Asclepias]

Where does it say in the constitution we cant have heavy ordinance?

It doesn't that's the point. The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the feds. Because it does not say arms or ordnance of any kind,... that left the hole for govco to add said restrictions not traditionally considered arms. That said the states were (prior to the 14th amendment) perfectly able to restrict arms.

But a nuclear warhead is called nuclear arms.

They could call them nuclear sex toys, either way it's ordnance.

But its also arms. You can call a gun a weapon and its still considered arms.

Correct. But it's not the arms covered by the 2nd amendment.

Says who?

 

[RKMBrown]

It doesn't that's the point. The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the feds. Because it does not say arms or ordnance of any kind,... that left the hole for govco to add said restrictions not traditionally considered arms. That said the states were (prior to the 14th amendment) perfectly able to restrict arms.

But a nuclear warhead is called nuclear arms.

They could call them nuclear sex toys, either way it's ordnance.

Anyone arguing nuclear weapons with any regard to the 2nd argues from ignorance ans/or dishnonesty.

Perhaps... a lot of people really don't get the difference between commonly used definitions of terms and legal definitions of terms.

That would be "ignorance".
If the ignorance is willful, that's "dishonesty".

Agreed... I don't think it's willful in this case... but I'm willing to let him prove me wrong