Do you notice how gun nuts never talk about any limits to gun ownership?

[NoVote]

Here you see the progressives typical contempt for the Bill of Rights. They hate how it prevents them from oppressing others as they desire.

They're only fooling themselves. It's really our guns that prevents them oppressing anyone. LOLOL

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Hey, I am not the one that wanted to use it in the literal sense. But since you rightwinggunnutters want to, let's do it. Now, tell me again that the 2nd amendment doesn't need updated. When you use it in the literal sense as you people have been hammering us to do, all of a sudden it has an entirely different meaning.

You're an idiot.
I have a gun in each hand, watchu gon do???

Then you are breaking the literal law if you are just using the 2nd amendment in it's literal writing. IF you are complying with your State Laws, I would do nothing. IF you are outside of those laws, double tap.

You need to preface what you say with "in my opinion " a Constitutional Scholar you are not

I just took it in it's literal meaning. I didn't read anything into it. Do you mean that if you take it in it's literal meaning that it's wrong and one has to interpret it and in order to interpret it one has to be a "Constitutional Scholar"? Wow, that leaves about everyone posting in here, doesn't it. Maybe it needs to be made more clear for us mental midgets to understand where it's not so friggin confusing.

Too funny. Like all Progs you think of yourself as intellectually superior. You are the only one your opinion matters to.

Actually, I used your own logic. You wanted a literal meaning to the 2nd amendment. Well, I gave you the stripped down literal meaning. Nothing read in, nothing added, nothing interpreted. And I showed that you have to add or interpret it to have any other meaning that what I showed. The fact that when you take it literally that it doesn't make any sense shows that it is in bad need of an update or an amendment. Since we all have to interpret it to give it meaning, that means it will end up with many interpretations. You just DEMAND that the only one is YOURs.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yes, you have the right to bear arms. You have two of them.

Yuck-yuck. Chuckle-chuckle.

Nowhere does it say you have the right to bear firearms.

Words have meaning, snowflake...
View attachment 258727

Or is it

distinctive emblems or devices originally borne on shields in battle and now forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.
synonyms: crest, emblem, heraldic device, coat of arms, armorial bearing, insignia, escutcheon, shield, heraldry, blazonry

Yes, you can have as many of those as you want. It says so right in the 2nd amendment.

a human upper limb especially : the part between the shoulder and the wrist

Plural would mean at least 2. And that would mean you have the right to bear ARMS. According to the 2nd amendment you have the right to run around sleeveless unless your name is Michelle Obama.

 

[Ambivalent1]

You're an idiot.
I have a gun in each hand, watchu gon do???

Then you are breaking the literal law if you are just using the 2nd amendment in it's literal writing. IF you are complying with your State Laws, I would do nothing. IF you are outside of those laws, double tap.

You need to preface what you say with "in my opinion " a Constitutional Scholar you are not

I just took it in it's literal meaning. I didn't read anything into it. Do you mean that if you take it in it's literal meaning that it's wrong and one has to interpret it and in order to interpret it one has to be a "Constitutional Scholar"? Wow, that leaves about everyone posting in here, doesn't it. Maybe it needs to be made more clear for us mental midgets to understand where it's not so friggin confusing.

Too funny. Like all Progs you think of yourself as intellectually superior. You are the only one your opinion matters to.

Actually, I used your own logic. You wanted a literal meaning to the 2nd amendment. Well, I gave you the stripped down literal meaning. Nothing read in, nothing added, nothing interpreted. And I showed that you have to add or interpret it to have any other meaning that what I showed. The fact that when you take it literally that it doesn't make any sense shows that it is in bad need of an update or an amendment. Since we all have to interpret it to give it meaning, that means it will end up with many interpretations. You just DEMAND that the only one is YOURs.

I didn't want anything. I simply pointed out the stupidity of your "position". It says I have the "right" to bear arms the context of which is weapons. The fact is that YOU are demanding that YOUR interpretation is the only "correct" one. You aren't very bright son. Further, you think that LE will try and disarm us, try it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You must either take it verbatum, update the damned thing in Congress or allow the courts to keep making the rulings which in affect makes the laws which is not the way the system was intended to happen.

Here you see the progressives typical contempt for the Bill of Rights. They hate how it prevents them from oppressing others as they desire.

You want to take it in it's literal writing. Well, I did. And I don't see the Bill of Rights as the governing document since it was written AFTER the Constitution of the United States was Ratified and only borrowed the 7 articles and added 3 more. When it was ratified, the Constitution was also ratified to add those last 3 and now all of them were called amendments because you amend the Constitution. So you can shove the Bill of Rights up your back side for all I care. I follow the legal governing document which the Bill of Rights is largely a copy of. Constitution of the United States Ratified 1789, Bill of rights Ratified 1791 and on that same time, the 3 additional articles from the bill of rights was amended too the Constitution. Therefore, the Bill of Rights is still just a copy of the Constitution of the United States and has become a dead document while the Constitution of the United States continued to grow.

If you want to go by the document that the Constitution of the United States borrowed from call the Bill of Rights, you have to use the one from 1688 and the Magna Carta dated 1215. Neither one said anything about any weapons. That was strictly a US Constitution Idea. Here is a brief synopsis of both documents.

The Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights
The 1689 English Bill of Rights is one of the two great historic documents which regulate the relations between the Crown and the people, the other document being the 1215 Magna Carta of England. The Magna Carta started the process of establishing the democratic basis of the English Monarchy by:

• Limiting the powers of the king
  
• Laying the basis for due process of law that should be known and orderly (which led to Trial by Jury)
  
• Prohibiting the king from taking property or taxes without consent of the Great Council
  

1215 Magna Carta Text and Words

The 1689 English Bill of Rights enhanced the democratic process by:

• Guaranteeing free elections and frequent meetings of Parliament
  
• Giving English people the right to complain to the king or queen in Parliament (Free Speech)
  
• Forbidding excessive fines and cruel punishment
  
• Establishing representative government with laws made by a group that acts for the people

So, if I use the term "Right to Bear Arms" in context with the original documents that affected the Constitution then that means the right to wear sleeveless garments. Of course, that's not what it was supposed to mean. But if you are going to take it in context, that is exactly what it means. Now, if you are going to modify it to suit your own ideals then what's to say that you are right and someone else is wrong? Isn't there many definitions of the word "Arms" in context to weapons? What makes you right and everyone else wrong?

 

[Ambivalent1]

You must either take it verbatum, update the damned thing in Congress or allow the courts to keep making the rulings which in affect makes the laws which is not the way the system was intended to happen.

Here you see the progressives typical contempt for the Bill of Rights. They hate how it prevents them from oppressing others as they desire.

You want to take it in it's literal writing. Well, I did. And I don't see the Bill of Rights as the governing document since it was written AFTER the Constitution of the United States was Ratified and only borrowed the 7 articles and added 3 more. When it was ratified, the Constitution was also ratified to add those last 3 and now all of them were called amendments because you amend the Constitution. So you can shove the Bill of Rights up your back side for all I care. I follow the legal governing document which the Bill of Rights is largely a copy of. Constitution of the United States Ratified 1789, Bill of rights Ratified 1791 and on that same time, the 3 additional articles from the bill of rights was amended too the Constitution. Therefore, the Bill of Rights is still just a copy of the Constitution of the United States and has become a dead document while the Constitution of the United States continued to grow.

If you want to go by the document that the Constitution of the United States borrowed from call the Bill of Rights, you have to use the one from 1688 and the Magna Carta dated 1215. Neither one said anything about any weapons. That was strictly a US Constitution Idea. Here is a brief synopsis of both documents.

The Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights
The 1689 English Bill of Rights is one of the two great historic documents which regulate the relations between the Crown and the people, the other document being the 1215 Magna Carta of England. The Magna Carta started the process of establishing the democratic basis of the English Monarchy by:

• Limiting the powers of the king
• Laying the basis for due process of law that should be known and orderly (which led to Trial by Jury)
• Prohibiting the king from taking property or taxes without consent of the Great Council

1215 Magna Carta Text and Words

The 1689 English Bill of Rights enhanced the democratic process by:

• Guaranteeing free elections and frequent meetings of Parliament
• Giving English people the right to complain to the king or queen in Parliament (Free Speech)
• Forbidding excessive fines and cruel punishment
• Establishing representative government with laws made by a group that acts for the people

So, if I use the term "Right to Bear Arms" in context with the original documents that affected the Constitution then that means the right to wear sleeveless garments. Of course, that's not what it was supposed to mean. But if you are going to take it in context, that is exactly what it means. Now, if you are going to modify it to suit your own ideals then what's to say that you are right and someone else is wrong? Isn't there many definitions of the word "Arms" in context to weapons? What makes you right and everyone else wrong?

You really are a stupid fuck.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then you are breaking the literal law if you are just using the 2nd amendment in it's literal writing. IF you are complying with your State Laws, I would do nothing. IF you are outside of those laws, double tap.

You need to preface what you say with "in my opinion " a Constitutional Scholar you are not

I just took it in it's literal meaning. I didn't read anything into it. Do you mean that if you take it in it's literal meaning that it's wrong and one has to interpret it and in order to interpret it one has to be a "Constitutional Scholar"? Wow, that leaves about everyone posting in here, doesn't it. Maybe it needs to be made more clear for us mental midgets to understand where it's not so friggin confusing.

Too funny. Like all Progs you think of yourself as intellectually superior. You are the only one your opinion matters to.

Actually, I used your own logic. You wanted a literal meaning to the 2nd amendment. Well, I gave you the stripped down literal meaning. Nothing read in, nothing added, nothing interpreted. And I showed that you have to add or interpret it to have any other meaning that what I showed. The fact that when you take it literally that it doesn't make any sense shows that it is in bad need of an update or an amendment. Since we all have to interpret it to give it meaning, that means it will end up with many interpretations. You just DEMAND that the only one is YOURs.

I didn't want anything. I simply pointed out the stupidity of your "position". It says I have the "right" to bear arms the context of which is weapons. The fact is that YOU are demanding that YOUR interpretation is the only "correct" one. You aren't very bright son. Further, you think that LE will try and disarm us, try it.

I am not demanding a thing. I simply am pointing out just how silly it is to do only one interpretation of the word "Arms". There are at least 3 definitions of the noun arms and only one deals with weapons. And the weapons definition isn't specific at all. You have the right to.....let's get silly, to own your own nuclear weapon. You have the right to own a fully functional B-2 loaded with 500lb bombs or maybe a couple or three nuclear missiles. You have the right to a Minuteman III in your back yard loaded with up to 10 1 MT warheads. Is that what you have in mind?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You must either take it verbatum, update the damned thing in Congress or allow the courts to keep making the rulings which in affect makes the laws which is not the way the system was intended to happen.

Here you see the progressives typical contempt for the Bill of Rights. They hate how it prevents them from oppressing others as they desire.

You want to take it in it's literal writing. Well, I did. And I don't see the Bill of Rights as the governing document since it was written AFTER the Constitution of the United States was Ratified and only borrowed the 7 articles and added 3 more. When it was ratified, the Constitution was also ratified to add those last 3 and now all of them were called amendments because you amend the Constitution. So you can shove the Bill of Rights up your back side for all I care. I follow the legal governing document which the Bill of Rights is largely a copy of. Constitution of the United States Ratified 1789, Bill of rights Ratified 1791 and on that same time, the 3 additional articles from the bill of rights was amended too the Constitution. Therefore, the Bill of Rights is still just a copy of the Constitution of the United States and has become a dead document while the Constitution of the United States continued to grow.

If you want to go by the document that the Constitution of the United States borrowed from call the Bill of Rights, you have to use the one from 1688 and the Magna Carta dated 1215. Neither one said anything about any weapons. That was strictly a US Constitution Idea. Here is a brief synopsis of both documents.

The Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights
The 1689 English Bill of Rights is one of the two great historic documents which regulate the relations between the Crown and the people, the other document being the 1215 Magna Carta of England. The Magna Carta started the process of establishing the democratic basis of the English Monarchy by:

• Limiting the powers of the king
• Laying the basis for due process of law that should be known and orderly (which led to Trial by Jury)
• Prohibiting the king from taking property or taxes without consent of the Great Council

1215 Magna Carta Text and Words

The 1689 English Bill of Rights enhanced the democratic process by:

• Guaranteeing free elections and frequent meetings of Parliament
• Giving English people the right to complain to the king or queen in Parliament (Free Speech)
• Forbidding excessive fines and cruel punishment
• Establishing representative government with laws made by a group that acts for the people

So, if I use the term "Right to Bear Arms" in context with the original documents that affected the Constitution then that means the right to wear sleeveless garments. Of course, that's not what it was supposed to mean. But if you are going to take it in context, that is exactly what it means. Now, if you are going to modify it to suit your own ideals then what's to say that you are right and someone else is wrong? Isn't there many definitions of the word "Arms" in context to weapons? What makes you right and everyone else wrong?

You really are a stupid fuck.

I just love it when you can't answer my responses without resorting to profanity. You lose, cupcake.

 

[Ambivalent1]

You need to preface what you say with "in my opinion " a Constitutional Scholar you are not

I just took it in it's literal meaning. I didn't read anything into it. Do you mean that if you take it in it's literal meaning that it's wrong and one has to interpret it and in order to interpret it one has to be a "Constitutional Scholar"? Wow, that leaves about everyone posting in here, doesn't it. Maybe it needs to be made more clear for us mental midgets to understand where it's not so friggin confusing.

Too funny. Like all Progs you think of yourself as intellectually superior. You are the only one your opinion matters to.

Actually, I used your own logic. You wanted a literal meaning to the 2nd amendment. Well, I gave you the stripped down literal meaning. Nothing read in, nothing added, nothing interpreted. And I showed that you have to add or interpret it to have any other meaning that what I showed. The fact that when you take it literally that it doesn't make any sense shows that it is in bad need of an update or an amendment. Since we all have to interpret it to give it meaning, that means it will end up with many interpretations. You just DEMAND that the only one is YOURs.

I didn't want anything. I simply pointed out the stupidity of your "position". It says I have the "right" to bear arms the context of which is weapons. The fact is that YOU are demanding that YOUR interpretation is the only "correct" one. You aren't very bright son. Further, you think that LE will try and disarm us, try it.

I am not demanding a thing. I simply am pointing out just how silly it is to do only one interpretation of the word "Arms". There are at least 3 definitions of the noun arms and only one deals with weapons. And the weapons definition isn't specific at all. You have the right to.....let's get silly, to own your own nuclear weapon. You have the right to own a fully functional B-2 loaded with 500lb bombs or maybe a couple or three nuclear missiles. You have the right to a Minuteman III in your back yard loaded with up to 10 1 MT warheads. Is that what you have in mind?

Progs play word games.
"Arms" are weapons, you know it, I know it, the Founders knew it so just shut the fuck up.
I have never understood why Progs think word games make them look intelligent.

You do it.
Pogo does it.
Gator does it.

You people look stupid. Come take my guns boy...the Police won't and neither will the Military.

 

[Ambivalent1]

You must either take it verbatum, update the damned thing in Congress or allow the courts to keep making the rulings which in affect makes the laws which is not the way the system was intended to happen.

Here you see the progressives typical contempt for the Bill of Rights. They hate how it prevents them from oppressing others as they desire.

You want to take it in it's literal writing. Well, I did. And I don't see the Bill of Rights as the governing document since it was written AFTER the Constitution of the United States was Ratified and only borrowed the 7 articles and added 3 more. When it was ratified, the Constitution was also ratified to add those last 3 and now all of them were called amendments because you amend the Constitution. So you can shove the Bill of Rights up your back side for all I care. I follow the legal governing document which the Bill of Rights is largely a copy of. Constitution of the United States Ratified 1789, Bill of rights Ratified 1791 and on that same time, the 3 additional articles from the bill of rights was amended too the Constitution. Therefore, the Bill of Rights is still just a copy of the Constitution of the United States and has become a dead document while the Constitution of the United States continued to grow.

If you want to go by the document that the Constitution of the United States borrowed from call the Bill of Rights, you have to use the one from 1688 and the Magna Carta dated 1215. Neither one said anything about any weapons. That was strictly a US Constitution Idea. Here is a brief synopsis of both documents.

The Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights
The 1689 English Bill of Rights is one of the two great historic documents which regulate the relations between the Crown and the people, the other document being the 1215 Magna Carta of England. The Magna Carta started the process of establishing the democratic basis of the English Monarchy by:

• Limiting the powers of the king
• Laying the basis for due process of law that should be known and orderly (which led to Trial by Jury)
• Prohibiting the king from taking property or taxes without consent of the Great Council

1215 Magna Carta Text and Words

The 1689 English Bill of Rights enhanced the democratic process by:

• Guaranteeing free elections and frequent meetings of Parliament
• Giving English people the right to complain to the king or queen in Parliament (Free Speech)
• Forbidding excessive fines and cruel punishment
• Establishing representative government with laws made by a group that acts for the people

So, if I use the term "Right to Bear Arms" in context with the original documents that affected the Constitution then that means the right to wear sleeveless garments. Of course, that's not what it was supposed to mean. But if you are going to take it in context, that is exactly what it means. Now, if you are going to modify it to suit your own ideals then what's to say that you are right and someone else is wrong? Isn't there many definitions of the word "Arms" in context to weapons? What makes you right and everyone else wrong?

You really are a stupid fuck.

I just love it when you can't answer my responses without resorting to profanity. You lose, cupcake.

(smile) You think your "responses" are meaningful, I don't

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You must either take it verbatum, update the damned thing in Congress or allow the courts to keep making the rulings which in affect makes the laws which is not the way the system was intended to happen.

Here you see the progressives typical contempt for the Bill of Rights. They hate how it prevents them from oppressing others as they desire.

You want to take it in it's literal writing. Well, I did. And I don't see the Bill of Rights as the governing document since it was written AFTER the Constitution of the United States was Ratified and only borrowed the 7 articles and added 3 more. When it was ratified, the Constitution was also ratified to add those last 3 and now all of them were called amendments because you amend the Constitution. So you can shove the Bill of Rights up your back side for all I care. I follow the legal governing document which the Bill of Rights is largely a copy of. Constitution of the United States Ratified 1789, Bill of rights Ratified 1791 and on that same time, the 3 additional articles from the bill of rights was amended too the Constitution. Therefore, the Bill of Rights is still just a copy of the Constitution of the United States and has become a dead document while the Constitution of the United States continued to grow.

If you want to go by the document that the Constitution of the United States borrowed from call the Bill of Rights, you have to use the one from 1688 and the Magna Carta dated 1215. Neither one said anything about any weapons. That was strictly a US Constitution Idea. Here is a brief synopsis of both documents.

The Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights
The 1689 English Bill of Rights is one of the two great historic documents which regulate the relations between the Crown and the people, the other document being the 1215 Magna Carta of England. The Magna Carta started the process of establishing the democratic basis of the English Monarchy by:

• Limiting the powers of the king
• Laying the basis for due process of law that should be known and orderly (which led to Trial by Jury)
• Prohibiting the king from taking property or taxes without consent of the Great Council

1215 Magna Carta Text and Words

The 1689 English Bill of Rights enhanced the democratic process by:

• Guaranteeing free elections and frequent meetings of Parliament
• Giving English people the right to complain to the king or queen in Parliament (Free Speech)
• Forbidding excessive fines and cruel punishment
• Establishing representative government with laws made by a group that acts for the people

So, if I use the term "Right to Bear Arms" in context with the original documents that affected the Constitution then that means the right to wear sleeveless garments. Of course, that's not what it was supposed to mean. But if you are going to take it in context, that is exactly what it means. Now, if you are going to modify it to suit your own ideals then what's to say that you are right and someone else is wrong? Isn't there many definitions of the word "Arms" in context to weapons? What makes you right and everyone else wrong?

You really are a stupid fuck.

I just love it when you can't answer my responses without resorting to profanity. You lose, cupcake.

(smile) You think your "responses" are meaningful, I don't

I am just illustrating that the 2nd amendment can be interpreted more than just the way you want it to be. You honestly believe I want to disarm anyone within reason? I don't. But since I don't see it the exact narrow way you do I must be a gun grabbing bleeding liberal (spit on floor). Guess again. I probably have more time with weapons of war of all types than you ever will have and know they aren't going away. Even at 68, I can drive nails at well over 400 yds. Used to be able to do that at 100 yds without a scope but the eyes ain't what they used to be. Am I afraid that my neighbors have guns? Well, it's been decades with no problems except with one who was shown that it would be better if he moved on. So no, I don't feel the need to disarm my neighbors unless they become a danger to the neighborhood. But since I don't see things in the narrow way you do, I must be a gungrabber leftee (spit on floor) even though I voted at least a few times Republican in my lifetime and probably will again (just not for that fuck Trump).

 

[P@triot]

Actually, I used your own logic.

You’re clearly not capable of that.

You wanted a literal meaning to the 2nd amendment.

The “literal meaning” states that I have an “uninfringed” right to keep and bear arms (arms are any weapons - not just muskets or handguns snowflake).

 

[P@triot]

You must either take it verbatum, update the damned thing in Congress or allow the courts to keep making the rulings which in affect makes the laws which is not the way the system was intended to happen.

Here you see the progressives typical contempt for the Bill of Rights. They hate how it prevents them from oppressing others as they desire.

So you can shove the Bill of Rights up your back side for all I care.

Your honor, the prosecution rests.

 

[progressive hunter]

Here you see the progressives typical contempt for the Bill of Rights. They hate how it prevents them from oppressing others as they desire.

You want to take it in it's literal writing. Well, I did. And I don't see the Bill of Rights as the governing document since it was written AFTER the Constitution of the United States was Ratified and only borrowed the 7 articles and added 3 more. When it was ratified, the Constitution was also ratified to add those last 3 and now all of them were called amendments because you amend the Constitution. So you can shove the Bill of Rights up your back side for all I care. I follow the legal governing document which the Bill of Rights is largely a copy of. Constitution of the United States Ratified 1789, Bill of rights Ratified 1791 and on that same time, the 3 additional articles from the bill of rights was amended too the Constitution. Therefore, the Bill of Rights is still just a copy of the Constitution of the United States and has become a dead document while the Constitution of the United States continued to grow.

If you want to go by the document that the Constitution of the United States borrowed from call the Bill of Rights, you have to use the one from 1688 and the Magna Carta dated 1215. Neither one said anything about any weapons. That was strictly a US Constitution Idea. Here is a brief synopsis of both documents.

The Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights
The 1689 English Bill of Rights is one of the two great historic documents which regulate the relations between the Crown and the people, the other document being the 1215 Magna Carta of England. The Magna Carta started the process of establishing the democratic basis of the English Monarchy by:

• Limiting the powers of the king
• Laying the basis for due process of law that should be known and orderly (which led to Trial by Jury)
• Prohibiting the king from taking property or taxes without consent of the Great Council

1215 Magna Carta Text and Words

The 1689 English Bill of Rights enhanced the democratic process by:

• Guaranteeing free elections and frequent meetings of Parliament
• Giving English people the right to complain to the king or queen in Parliament (Free Speech)
• Forbidding excessive fines and cruel punishment
• Establishing representative government with laws made by a group that acts for the people

So, if I use the term "Right to Bear Arms" in context with the original documents that affected the Constitution then that means the right to wear sleeveless garments. Of course, that's not what it was supposed to mean. But if you are going to take it in context, that is exactly what it means. Now, if you are going to modify it to suit your own ideals then what's to say that you are right and someone else is wrong? Isn't there many definitions of the word "Arms" in context to weapons? What makes you right and everyone else wrong?

You really are a stupid fuck.

I just love it when you can't answer my responses without resorting to profanity. You lose, cupcake.

(smile) You think your "responses" are meaningful, I don't

I am just illustrating that the 2nd amendment can be interpreted more than just the way you want it to be. You honestly believe I want to disarm anyone within reason? I don't. But since I don't see it the exact narrow way you do I must be a gun grabbing bleeding liberal (spit on floor). Guess again. I probably have more time with weapons of war of all types than you ever will have and know they aren't going away. Even at 68, I can drive nails at well over 400 yds. Used to be able to do that at 100 yds without a scope but the eyes ain't what they used to be. Am I afraid that my neighbors have guns? Well, it's been decades with no problems except with one who was shown that it would be better if he moved on. So no, I don't feel the need to disarm my neighbors unless they become a danger to the neighborhood. But since I don't see things in the narrow way you do, I must be a gungrabber leftee (spit on floor) even though I voted at least a few times Republican in my lifetime and probably will again (just not for that fuck Trump).

daryl you still peddling your communist gun control bullshit

 

[P@triot]

And I don't see the Bill of Rights as the governing document since it was written AFTER the Constitution of the United States was Ratified.

Yeah, dumbshit, that’s how amendments work. If they were added during the time the constitution was drafted, they wouldn’t be “amendments”.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Actually, I used your own logic.

You’re clearly not capable of that.

You wanted a literal meaning to the 2nd amendment.

The “literal meaning” states that I have an “uninfringed” right to keep and bear arms (arms are any weapons - not just muskets or handguns snowflake).

You interpreted it. You added to it. You edited it. Here, let me put what you really said without any of that.

The “literal meaning” states that I have an “uninfringed” right to keep and bear arms

Yes, you have the right to wear a sleeveless tee shirt and no one can stop you. Now, it you want it to mean what you say it should, get it changed in Congress through an Amendment.

 

[P@triot]

And I don't see the Bill of Rights as the governing document

Thankfully, nobody cares what your Ted Kaczynski ass thinks. You’re not the arbitrator of what is and what is not, a “governing document”.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You must either take it verbatum, update the damned thing in Congress or allow the courts to keep making the rulings which in affect makes the laws which is not the way the system was intended to happen.

Here you see the progressives typical contempt for the Bill of Rights. They hate how it prevents them from oppressing others as they desire.

So you can shove the Bill of Rights up your back side for all I care.

Your honor, the prosecution rests.

You don't have any honor, cupcake. You are pissed that someone else has a different take on things and has thoroughly kicked your ass..

 

[P@triot]

Now, it you want it to mean what you say it should, get it changed in Congress through an Amendment.

I don’t need to get it changed...it already states I have an uninfriged right!

 

[P@triot]

You are pissed that someone else has a different take on things

Why would I be pissed about that when you don’t even matter? Nobody cares about your radical, Unabomber “take” on things. Nobody. Write your little manifesto. I don’t care. And nobody else will either.