Ex-Supreme Court Justice Wants to Ban Semi-Automatic Weapons-What Is a Semi-Automatic Weapon?

[Taz]

Nonsense.

Neither rights nor freedoms can be ‘taken away.’

Rights are subject to limitations and restrictions consistent with Constitutional case law, where such limits and restrictions do not ‘take away’ rights and freedoms.

And the same is true with regard to the Second Amendment; if a given class of firearms is banned consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, no freedoms have been ‘taken away,’ no rights ‘violated.’

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

What "jurisprudence" leeway do you have with the wording "shall not be infringed"? Not much, is it? Certainly not banning of arms.

We have natural rights. The BOR restricts what the government can do to or not do to restrict those rights. Pretty straightforward with "shall not be infringed", isn't it?

If the government can take firearms aways and if you have to get permission from the filthy government to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

Frankly, as I see it, all gun restrictions are constitutionally illegal, and we have only been looking the other way for years telling ourselves it was for the public good. The intention of the Framers was that we had a militia of the people equal to anything the standing army had. Tit for tat. Our first president George Washington said it himself. Flintlocks and muskets are no longer the order of the day. If you have the money to afford it and are not a felon or criminal background, you should be free to own any firearm on the face of the Earth, full automatic, .50 caliber, Minigun, full assault, belt fed, grenade launcher, incendiary---- TANK if you want one! To those who say I don't need one, screw off------ all I can say is that if the shit ever hits the frying pan, I won't be at YOUR door wasting my ammo to save your worthless ass.

So you should be equal with government firepower? Then you need to buy some nukes, the big ones. Do you defend an Arab-American’s right to own a nuke?

Yeah, you need nukes. That way when the government goes tyrannical, you can nuke the very own country you live in.

And probably yourself, unless you own a rocket or airplane.

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[xyz]

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

What "jurisprudence" leeway do you have with the wording "shall not be infringed"? Not much, is it? Certainly not banning of arms.

We have natural rights. The BOR restricts what the government can do to or not do to restrict those rights. Pretty straightforward with "shall not be infringed", isn't it?

If the government can take firearms aways and if you have to get permission from the filthy government to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

Frankly, as I see it, all gun restrictions are constitutionally illegal, and we have only been looking the other way for years telling ourselves it was for the public good. The intention of the Framers was that we had a militia of the people equal to anything the standing army had. Tit for tat. Our first president George Washington said it himself. Flintlocks and muskets are no longer the order of the day. If you have the money to afford it and are not a felon or criminal background, you should be free to own any firearm on the face of the Earth, full automatic, .50 caliber, Minigun, full assault, belt fed, grenade launcher, incendiary---- TANK if you want one! To those who say I don't need one, screw off------ all I can say is that if the shit ever hits the frying pan, I won't be at YOUR door wasting my ammo to save your worthless ass.

So you should be equal with government firepower? Then you need to buy some nukes, the big ones. Do you defend an Arab-American’s right to own a nuke?

Yeah, you need nukes. That way when the government goes tyrannical, you can nuke the very own country you live in.

And probably yourself, unless you own a rocket or airplane.

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

What "jurisprudence" leeway do you have with the wording "shall not be infringed"? Not much, is it? Certainly not banning of arms.

We have natural rights. The BOR restricts what the government can do to or not do to restrict those rights. Pretty straightforward with "shall not be infringed", isn't it?

If the government can take firearms aways and if you have to get permission from the filthy government to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

Frankly, as I see it, all gun restrictions are constitutionally illegal, and we have only been looking the other way for years telling ourselves it was for the public good. The intention of the Framers was that we had a militia of the people equal to anything the standing army had. Tit for tat. Our first president George Washington said it himself. Flintlocks and muskets are no longer the order of the day. If you have the money to afford it and are not a felon or criminal background, you should be free to own any firearm on the face of the Earth, full automatic, .50 caliber, Minigun, full assault, belt fed, grenade launcher, incendiary---- TANK if you want one! To those who say I don't need one, screw off------ all I can say is that if the shit ever hits the frying pan, I won't be at YOUR door wasting my ammo to save your worthless ass.

So you should be equal with government firepower? Then you need to buy some nukes, the big ones. Do you defend an Arab-American’s right to own a nuke?

Yeah, you need nukes. That way when the government goes tyrannical, you can nuke the very own country you live in.

And probably yourself, unless you own a rocket or airplane.

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

The stuff about nukes was obviously a joke, neither I nor Ray were serious. Sarcasm.

But I guess he really believes citizens should be allowed to own all kinds of other military hardware. I don't, but whatever.

 

[Taz]

Frankly, as I see it, all gun restrictions are constitutionally illegal, and we have only been looking the other way for years telling ourselves it was for the public good. The intention of the Framers was that we had a militia of the people equal to anything the standing army had. Tit for tat. Our first president George Washington said it himself. Flintlocks and muskets are no longer the order of the day. If you have the money to afford it and are not a felon or criminal background, you should be free to own any firearm on the face of the Earth, full automatic, .50 caliber, Minigun, full assault, belt fed, grenade launcher, incendiary---- TANK if you want one! To those who say I don't need one, screw off------ all I can say is that if the shit ever hits the frying pan, I won't be at YOUR door wasting my ammo to save your worthless ass.

So you should be equal with government firepower? Then you need to buy some nukes, the big ones. Do you defend an Arab-American’s right to own a nuke?

Yeah, you need nukes. That way when the government goes tyrannical, you can nuke the very own country you live in.

And probably yourself, unless you own a rocket or airplane.

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

Frankly, as I see it, all gun restrictions are constitutionally illegal, and we have only been looking the other way for years telling ourselves it was for the public good. The intention of the Framers was that we had a militia of the people equal to anything the standing army had. Tit for tat. Our first president George Washington said it himself. Flintlocks and muskets are no longer the order of the day. If you have the money to afford it and are not a felon or criminal background, you should be free to own any firearm on the face of the Earth, full automatic, .50 caliber, Minigun, full assault, belt fed, grenade launcher, incendiary---- TANK if you want one! To those who say I don't need one, screw off------ all I can say is that if the shit ever hits the frying pan, I won't be at YOUR door wasting my ammo to save your worthless ass.

So you should be equal with government firepower? Then you need to buy some nukes, the big ones. Do you defend an Arab-American’s right to own a nuke?

Yeah, you need nukes. That way when the government goes tyrannical, you can nuke the very own country you live in.

And probably yourself, unless you own a rocket or airplane.

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

The stuff about nukes was obviously a joke, neither I nor Ray were serious. Sarcasm.

But I guess he really believes citizens should be allowed to own all kinds of other military hardware. I don't, but whatever.

I was making the point that NOBODY wants anyone to own nukes, therefore everyone is already ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment. The gun crowd in this thread are simply irritated that they have been shown to be FOR limiting the 2nd.

 

[2aguy]

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

What "jurisprudence" leeway do you have with the wording "shall not be infringed"? Not much, is it? Certainly not banning of arms.

We have natural rights. The BOR restricts what the government can do to or not do to restrict those rights. Pretty straightforward with "shall not be infringed", isn't it?

If the government can take firearms aways and if you have to get permission from the filthy government to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

Frankly, as I see it, all gun restrictions are constitutionally illegal, and we have only been looking the other way for years telling ourselves it was for the public good. The intention of the Framers was that we had a militia of the people equal to anything the standing army had. Tit for tat. Our first president George Washington said it himself. Flintlocks and muskets are no longer the order of the day. If you have the money to afford it and are not a felon or criminal background, you should be free to own any firearm on the face of the Earth, full automatic, .50 caliber, Minigun, full assault, belt fed, grenade launcher, incendiary---- TANK if you want one! To those who say I don't need one, screw off------ all I can say is that if the shit ever hits the frying pan, I won't be at YOUR door wasting my ammo to save your worthless ass.

So you should be equal with government firepower? Then you need to buy some nukes, the big ones. Do you defend an Arab-American’s right to own a nuke?

Yeah, you need nukes. That way when the government goes tyrannical, you can nuke the very own country you live in.

And probably yourself, unless you own a rocket or airplane.

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

Which Arab Americans lost their 2nd Amendment Rights?

 

[2aguy]

So you should be equal with government firepower? Then you need to buy some nukes, the big ones. Do you defend an Arab-American’s right to own a nuke?

Yeah, you need nukes. That way when the government goes tyrannical, you can nuke the very own country you live in.

And probably yourself, unless you own a rocket or airplane.

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

So you should be equal with government firepower? Then you need to buy some nukes, the big ones. Do you defend an Arab-American’s right to own a nuke?

Yeah, you need nukes. That way when the government goes tyrannical, you can nuke the very own country you live in.

And probably yourself, unless you own a rocket or airplane.

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

The stuff about nukes was obviously a joke, neither I nor Ray were serious. Sarcasm.

But I guess he really believes citizens should be allowed to own all kinds of other military hardware. I don't, but whatever.

I was making the point that NOBODY wants anyone to own nukes, therefore everyone is already ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment. The gun crowd in this thread are simply irritated that they have been shown to be FOR limiting the 2nd.

The 2nd Amendment covers bearable arms....again, you really, really need to read Heller if you don't want to post stupid crap....

 

[Taz]

Yeah, you need nukes. That way when the government goes tyrannical, you can nuke the very own country you live in.

And probably yourself, unless you own a rocket or airplane.

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yeah, you need nukes. That way when the government goes tyrannical, you can nuke the very own country you live in.

And probably yourself, unless you own a rocket or airplane.

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

The stuff about nukes was obviously a joke, neither I nor Ray were serious. Sarcasm.

But I guess he really believes citizens should be allowed to own all kinds of other military hardware. I don't, but whatever.

I was making the point that NOBODY wants anyone to own nukes, therefore everyone is already ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment. The gun crowd in this thread are simply irritated that they have been shown to be FOR limiting the 2nd.

The 2nd Amendment covers bearable arms....again, you really, really need to read Heller if you don't want to post stupid crap....

Ever heard of a suitcase nuke? No? Well now you have. You're welcome.

 

[2aguy]

And probably yourself, unless you own a rocket or airplane.

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

And probably yourself, unless you own a rocket or airplane.

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

The stuff about nukes was obviously a joke, neither I nor Ray were serious. Sarcasm.

But I guess he really believes citizens should be allowed to own all kinds of other military hardware. I don't, but whatever.

I was making the point that NOBODY wants anyone to own nukes, therefore everyone is already ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment. The gun crowd in this thread are simply irritated that they have been shown to be FOR limiting the 2nd.

The 2nd Amendment covers bearable arms....again, you really, really need to read Heller if you don't want to post stupid crap....

Ever heard of a suitcase nuke? No? Well now you have. You're welcome.

Nope.....that isn't a bearable arm.....and, if you read Heller, you would know that it is both dangerous and unusual, in that it is an area effect weapon...which is not covered by the 2nd...

 

[Taz]

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

And some Arab-Americans would love to have their 2nd Amendment rights back so they can do just that. Thanks for clearing that up.

The stuff about nukes was obviously a joke, neither I nor Ray were serious. Sarcasm.

But I guess he really believes citizens should be allowed to own all kinds of other military hardware. I don't, but whatever.

I was making the point that NOBODY wants anyone to own nukes, therefore everyone is already ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment. The gun crowd in this thread are simply irritated that they have been shown to be FOR limiting the 2nd.

The 2nd Amendment covers bearable arms....again, you really, really need to read Heller if you don't want to post stupid crap....

Ever heard of a suitcase nuke? No? Well now you have. You're welcome.

Nope.....that isn't a bearable arm.....and, if you read Heller, you would know that it is both dangerous and unusual, in that it is an area effect weapon...which is not covered by the 2nd...

So you agree that limiting the 2nd Amendment to exclude nukes is a good thing. Thanks for clearing that up. You may now consider yourself as a pro-infringer of the 2nd Amendment. Good for you.

 

[2aguy]

The stuff about nukes was obviously a joke, neither I nor Ray were serious. Sarcasm.

But I guess he really believes citizens should be allowed to own all kinds of other military hardware. I don't, but whatever.

I was making the point that NOBODY wants anyone to own nukes, therefore everyone is already ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment. The gun crowd in this thread are simply irritated that they have been shown to be FOR limiting the 2nd.

The 2nd Amendment covers bearable arms....again, you really, really need to read Heller if you don't want to post stupid crap....

Ever heard of a suitcase nuke? No? Well now you have. You're welcome.

Nope.....that isn't a bearable arm.....and, if you read Heller, you would know that it is both dangerous and unusual, in that it is an area effect weapon...which is not covered by the 2nd...

So you agree that limiting the 2nd Amendment to exclude nukes is a good thing. Thanks for clearing that up. You may now consider yourself as a pro-infringer of the 2nd Amendment. Good for you.

A nuke isn't part of the 2nd Amendment.....the only clear prohibitions in the ruling, Heller, for the 2nd Amendment, are felons and the dangerously mentally ill......the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected since it is in common use for defense and other lawful purposes......

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapon

 

[toobfreak]

I was making the point

Honestly, Taz, the one thing I can honestly say is that after reading perhaps hundreds of your posts, I've yet to see you make a single point other than the one on top your head.

that NOBODY wants anyone to own nukes,

Really? We needed you to tell us that? For one thing, there ARE people who want to own nukes! But it is more than just not having the money, it is the inability to acquire the needed materials, technology and devices. But is this really your line of thought that you need to qualify the desire for nukes as a logical extension on the freedom to own guns? (no need to actually reply; spare us your thoughts---- it was merely a self-serving rhetorical question I felt compelled to put out there).

therefore everyone is already ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment. The gun crowd in this thread are simply irritated that they have been shown to be FOR limiting the 2nd.

I'm not for limiting the 2nd. A lot of people aren't. If you can afford it and can meet the federal legal guideline, then I don't care if you want to buy a Blackhawk helicopter. Put another way, many private individuals own jumbo jets and a couple of those took down the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 people. You should hope to do so good with one tank or a helicopter. Maybe we should put a ban on jets?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Ever heard of a suitcase nuke? No? Well now you have. You're welcome.

The ENTIRE MOTHERFUCKING COUNTRY of North Korea has been trying to shrink nukes down small enough to fit on top of their big-ass fucking missiles.

Who is supplying this "suitcase" nuke? Surely, the cost and logistic of developing or acquiring such a device would be too great for a private citizen, even a commie-mega rich asshole like George Soros would have difficulty doing so, and that motherfucker has destroyed economies and meddled in elections.

Let's also not forget that even if a private citizen were able to acquire such a nuke, I am CERTAIN an individual of that level of means would have more sense than to actually blow up such an expensive device. That's literally burning money. A shit ton of it.



So, let's all come back to fucking reality and stop with the impossible, bullshit hypothetical in a lame-ass effort to somehow prove that we are unreasonable to believe that, at a minimum, we should be allowed to have semi-auto weapons, like we have for the past 80+ years.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The stuff about nukes was obviously a joke, neither I nor Ray were serious. Sarcasm.

But I guess he really believes citizens should be allowed to own all kinds of other military hardware. I don't, but whatever.

I was making the point that NOBODY wants anyone to own nukes, therefore everyone is already ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment. The gun crowd in this thread are simply irritated that they have been shown to be FOR limiting the 2nd.

The 2nd Amendment covers bearable arms....again, you really, really need to read Heller if you don't want to post stupid crap....

Ever heard of a suitcase nuke? No? Well now you have. You're welcome.

Nope.....that isn't a bearable arm.....and, if you read Heller, you would know that it is both dangerous and unusual, in that it is an area effect weapon...which is not covered by the 2nd...

So you agree that limiting the 2nd Amendment to exclude nukes is a good thing. Thanks for clearing that up. You may now consider yourself as a pro-infringer of the 2nd Amendment. Good for you.

What a ridiculous argument. Bombs are not arms. Nobody needs to use bombs to defend themselves.

 

[Taz]

I was making the point that NOBODY wants anyone to own nukes, therefore everyone is already ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment. The gun crowd in this thread are simply irritated that they have been shown to be FOR limiting the 2nd.

The 2nd Amendment covers bearable arms....again, you really, really need to read Heller if you don't want to post stupid crap....

Ever heard of a suitcase nuke? No? Well now you have. You're welcome.

Nope.....that isn't a bearable arm.....and, if you read Heller, you would know that it is both dangerous and unusual, in that it is an area effect weapon...which is not covered by the 2nd...

So you agree that limiting the 2nd Amendment to exclude nukes is a good thing. Thanks for clearing that up. You may now consider yourself as a pro-infringer of the 2nd Amendment. Good for you.

A nuke isn't part of the 2nd Amendment.....the only clear prohibitions in the ruling, Heller, for the 2nd Amendment, are felons and the dangerously mentally ill......the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected since it is in common use for defense and other lawful purposes......

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapon

A suitcase nuke is a bearable arms.

 

[Taz]

I was making the point

Honestly, Taz, the one thing I can honestly say is that after reading perhaps hundreds of your posts, I've yet to see you make a single point other than the one on top your head.

that NOBODY wants anyone to own nukes,

Really? We needed you to tell us that? For one thing, there ARE people who want to own nukes! But it is more than just not having the money, it is the inability to acquire the needed materials, technology and devices. But is this really your line of thought that you need to qualify the desire for nukes as a logical extension on the freedom to own guns? (no need to actually reply; spare us your thoughts---- it was merely a self-serving rhetorical question I felt compelled to put out there).

therefore everyone is already ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment. The gun crowd in this thread are simply irritated that they have been shown to be FOR limiting the 2nd.

I'm not for limiting the 2nd. A lot of people aren't. If you can afford it and can meet the federal legal guideline, then I don't care if you want to buy a Blackhawk helicopter. Put another way, many private individuals own jumbo jets and a couple of those took down the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 people. You should hope to do so good with one tank or a helicopter. Maybe we should put a ban on jets?

Put an ad in the NY Times asking to buy a nuke and we'll watch as the feds sting you and put you in jail for a long time. To say that you can legally own a nuke in the US is ludicrous. Phone the FBI and ask them if you don't believe me.

 

[Taz]

Ever heard of a suitcase nuke? No? Well now you have. You're welcome.

The ENTIRE MOTHERFUCKING COUNTRY of North Korea has been trying to shrink nukes down small enough to fit on top of their big-ass fucking missiles.

Who is supplying this "suitcase" nuke? Surely, the cost and logistic of developing or acquiring such a device would be too great for a private citizen, even a commie-mega rich asshole like George Soros would have difficulty doing so, and that motherfucker has destroyed economies and meddled in elections.

Let's also not forget that even if a private citizen were able to acquire such a nuke, I am CERTAIN an individual of that level of means would have more sense than to actually blow up such an expensive device. That's literally burning money. A shit ton of it.



So, let's all come back to fucking reality and stop with the impossible, bullshit hypothetical in a lame-ass effort to somehow prove that we are unreasonable to believe that, at a minimum, we should be allowed to have semi-auto weapons, like we have for the past 80+ years.

Some Arab-Americans would love a nuke and you can guess what they'd do with it. The guy in Oklahoma would have wanted one as well. Tons of crazy people would love some AA missiles to hide in the bushes near airports... These and other weapons are banned from ordinary citizens, go ahead and try to buy one, you won't be able to. So your ok with limiting the 2nd, just like everyone else.

 

[Taz]

I was making the point that NOBODY wants anyone to own nukes, therefore everyone is already ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment. The gun crowd in this thread are simply irritated that they have been shown to be FOR limiting the 2nd.

The 2nd Amendment covers bearable arms....again, you really, really need to read Heller if you don't want to post stupid crap....

Ever heard of a suitcase nuke? No? Well now you have. You're welcome.

Nope.....that isn't a bearable arm.....and, if you read Heller, you would know that it is both dangerous and unusual, in that it is an area effect weapon...which is not covered by the 2nd...

So you agree that limiting the 2nd Amendment to exclude nukes is a good thing. Thanks for clearing that up. You may now consider yourself as a pro-infringer of the 2nd Amendment. Good for you.

What a ridiculous argument. Bombs are not arms. Nobody needs to use bombs to defend themselves.

Bombs are arms, look it up. So the Framers purposely allowed us to have a well-regulated militia to fight a tyrannical government that out guns us by a fucking mile? Um...no.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I was making the point

Honestly, Taz, the one thing I can honestly say is that after reading perhaps hundreds of your posts, I've yet to see you make a single point other than the one on top your head.

that NOBODY wants anyone to own nukes,

Really? We needed you to tell us that? For one thing, there ARE people who want to own nukes! But it is more than just not having the money, it is the inability to acquire the needed materials, technology and devices. But is this really your line of thought that you need to qualify the desire for nukes as a logical extension on the freedom to own guns? (no need to actually reply; spare us your thoughts---- it was merely a self-serving rhetorical question I felt compelled to put out there).

therefore everyone is already ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment. The gun crowd in this thread are simply irritated that they have been shown to be FOR limiting the 2nd.

I'm not for limiting the 2nd. A lot of people aren't. If you can afford it and can meet the federal legal guideline, then I don't care if you want to buy a Blackhawk helicopter. Put another way, many private individuals own jumbo jets and a couple of those took down the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 people. You should hope to do so good with one tank or a helicopter. Maybe we should put a ban on jets?

Put an ad in the NY Times asking to buy a nuke and we'll watch as the feds sting you and put you in jail for a long time. To say that you can legally own a nuke in the US is ludicrous. Phone the FBI and ask them if you don't believe me.

They'd probably laugh at you and say "Sure, go ahead!"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The 2nd Amendment covers bearable arms....again, you really, really need to read Heller if you don't want to post stupid crap....

Ever heard of a suitcase nuke? No? Well now you have. You're welcome.

Nope.....that isn't a bearable arm.....and, if you read Heller, you would know that it is both dangerous and unusual, in that it is an area effect weapon...which is not covered by the 2nd...

So you agree that limiting the 2nd Amendment to exclude nukes is a good thing. Thanks for clearing that up. You may now consider yourself as a pro-infringer of the 2nd Amendment. Good for you.

What a ridiculous argument. Bombs are not arms. Nobody needs to use bombs to defend themselves.

Bombs are arms, look it up. So the Framers purposely allowed us to have a well-regulated militia to fight a tyrannical government that out guns us by a fucking mile? Um...no.

At the time they didn't outgun us. States had equal firepower to the federal government.

Arms means firearms. Bombs are illegal to manufacture or own in this country. If you are caught making a pipe bomb in your garage, they will haul you to jail because nobody needs a pipe bomb for self-defense.

 

[Taz]

I was making the point

Honestly, Taz, the one thing I can honestly say is that after reading perhaps hundreds of your posts, I've yet to see you make a single point other than the one on top your head.

that NOBODY wants anyone to own nukes,

Really? We needed you to tell us that? For one thing, there ARE people who want to own nukes! But it is more than just not having the money, it is the inability to acquire the needed materials, technology and devices. But is this really your line of thought that you need to qualify the desire for nukes as a logical extension on the freedom to own guns? (no need to actually reply; spare us your thoughts---- it was merely a self-serving rhetorical question I felt compelled to put out there).

therefore everyone is already ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment. The gun crowd in this thread are simply irritated that they have been shown to be FOR limiting the 2nd.

I'm not for limiting the 2nd. A lot of people aren't. If you can afford it and can meet the federal legal guideline, then I don't care if you want to buy a Blackhawk helicopter. Put another way, many private individuals own jumbo jets and a couple of those took down the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 people. You should hope to do so good with one tank or a helicopter. Maybe we should put a ban on jets?

Put an ad in the NY Times asking to buy a nuke and we'll watch as the feds sting you and put you in jail for a long time. To say that you can legally own a nuke in the US is ludicrous. Phone the FBI and ask them if you don't believe me.

They'd probably laugh at you and say "Sure, go ahead!"

You know that's not true. C'mon be honest, I'd get stung and arrested.

 

[Taz]

Ever heard of a suitcase nuke? No? Well now you have. You're welcome.

Nope.....that isn't a bearable arm.....and, if you read Heller, you would know that it is both dangerous and unusual, in that it is an area effect weapon...which is not covered by the 2nd...

So you agree that limiting the 2nd Amendment to exclude nukes is a good thing. Thanks for clearing that up. You may now consider yourself as a pro-infringer of the 2nd Amendment. Good for you.

What a ridiculous argument. Bombs are not arms. Nobody needs to use bombs to defend themselves.

Bombs are arms, look it up. So the Framers purposely allowed us to have a well-regulated militia to fight a tyrannical government that out guns us by a fucking mile? Um...no.

At the time they didn't outgun us. States had equal firepower to the federal government.

Arms means firearms. Bombs are illegal to manufacture or own in this country. If you are caught making a pipe bomb in your garage, they will haul you to jail because nobody needs a pipe bomb for self-defense.

arm 2
(ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
a. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
b. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.
4. arms
a. Heraldry Bearings.
b. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.
v. armed, arm·ing, arms
v.intr.
1. To supply or equip oneself with weaponry.
2. To prepare oneself for warfare or conflict.
v.tr.
1. To equip with weapons: armed themselves with loaded pistols; arm a missile with a warhead; arm a nation for war.
2. To equip with what is needed for effective action: tax advisers who were armed with the latest forms.
3. To provide with something that strengthens or protects: a space reentry vehicle that was armed with a ceramicshield.
4. To prepare (a weapon or electronic system, such as an alarm) for use or operation, as by releasing a safety device.
Idiom: