Gun Control Compromise

[2aguy]

The 2A is the only part of the Bill of Rights that refers to a specific physical technology. And any specific physical technology is continually subject to change and development. ALL of the other entries in the BofR refer to concepts.

False.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

*effects plural : movable property

My computer is not a concept. It is one of my effects. It is also a physical piece of technology that is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment, as are countless other things I own that the founding fathers never envisioned.

Thank you.....exactly.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Correct, it does not change the concept of "Arms". Nor did I ever claim it does.

It changes the (again) definition.

It doesn't do either. Arms are weapons. Weapons vary, and new weapons are invented, but the definition of a weapon does not change.

You don't want to accept what is blindingly obvious. Weapons can kill people. Better weapons do it more efficiently.

The founders knew that weapons or "arms" were deadly when they wrote the 2A. You are arguing that they would have changed their minds had the weapons been more efficient. PROVE IT.

You can accept the FACT that "arms" means any weapon, or you can continue to try twist the meaning of words to make you feel safer or whatever you are trying to do.

You need to amend the constitution if you want to exclude certain types of arms.

 

[Darkwind]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

Here is My compromise.

I can buy any gun I want and gun grabbers can go sit in the corner and be quiet.

 

[Pogo]

Correct, it does not change the concept of "Arms". Nor did I ever claim it does.

It changes the (again) definition.

It doesn't do either. Arms are weapons. Weapons vary, and new weapons are invented, but the definition of a weapon does not change.

You don't want to accept what is blindingly obvious. Weapons can kill people. Better weapons do it more efficiently.

Indeed. Weapons do what they've always done, regardless of the technology. How they do it, and how much they do it, and how efficiently they do it, is what changes.

There's no point of disagreement there.

The founders knew that weapons or "arms" were deadly when they wrote the 2A. You are arguing that they would have changed their minds had the weapons been more efficient. PROVE IT.

That's your ass-sertion so YOU prove it.

I in fact stated the opposite, that your position of "arms is arms is arms" means I can own a nuke and you can own a shoulder-fired antiaircraft gun. And that's just following your position to its logical conclusion.

What the Founders did know that you don't mention here, is that as time goes on there needed to be a remedy for changing the Constitution and specific Amendments in the event that, say, the country banned alcohol and then figured out that was a stupid idea. You know, unforeseen events that would have happened long after they were gone. And they did that.

You can accept the FACT that "arms" means any weapon, or you can continue to try twist the meaning of words to make you feel safer or whatever you are trying to do.

It does, and specifically it means Arms that were extant and conceivable at the time. If you're trying to claim the Founders could have envisioned submarines and drones and nukes and 3D printers and presumably heretofore unconceived inventions, and meant to include them as well, well ---- prove THAT.

You need to amend the constitution if you want to exclude certain types of arms.

Yep. Mentioned that right above, didn't I.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Indeed. Weapons do what they've always done, regardless of the technology. How they do it, and how much they do it, and how efficiently they do it, is what changes.

There's no point of disagreement there.

But, you seem to be arguing that the founders would not have included the 2A had the "arms" of today been around in 1781, right?

I am saying that you cannot prove that. The intent was ALL arms and if you want to change that, you need to do what the founders intended and AMEND.

That's your ass-sertion so YOU prove it.

Here is my proof, as they wrote it:

"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."

I in fact stated the opposite, that your position of "arms is arms is arms" means I can own a nuke and you can own a shoulder-fired antiaircraft gun. And that's just following your position to its logical conclusion.

Yes. Would that not be consistent with the intent of the founders to have a citizenry armed to the level necessary to defend the nation from attack?

Again, if you want to change it, you need to amend.

What the Founders did know that you don't mention here, is that as time goes on there needed to be a remedy for changing the Constitution and specific Amendments in the event that, say, the country banned alcohol and then figured out that was a stupid idea. You know, events that would have happened long after they were gone. And they did that.

Yes. Exactly. That's what I have been saying.

You need to amend.

It does, and specifically it means Arms that were extant and conceivable at the time. If you're trying to claim the Founders could have envisioned submarines and drones and nukes and 3D printers and presumably heretofore unconceived inventions, and meant to include them as well, well ---- prove THAT.

They intended to include ALL arms. If you want to change it....AMEND!!!

Yep. Mentioned that right above, didn't I.

Finally. You get my point.

You don't want to go through the difficult process of amending the constitution. You want to ignore the PLAIN LANGUAGE because you THINK the founders meant to limit the types of ARMS protected, which they clear didn't from the text of the 2A.

Now, can you admit that they intended that ALL arms were protected? Can you admit that you need a constitutional amendment to "fix" it now?

.

 

[progressive hunter]

Correct, it does not change the concept of "Arms". Nor did I ever claim it does.

It changes the (again) definition.

It doesn't do either. Arms are weapons. Weapons vary, and new weapons are invented, but the definition of a weapon does not change.

You don't want to accept what is blindingly obvious. Weapons can kill people. Better weapons do it more efficiently.

Indeed. Weapons do what they've always done, regardless of the technology. How they do it, and how much they do it, and how efficiently they do it, is what changes.

There's no point of disagreement there.

The founders knew that weapons or "arms" were deadly when they wrote the 2A. You are arguing that they would have changed their minds had the weapons been more efficient. PROVE IT.

That's your ass-sertion so YOU prove it.

I in fact stated the opposite, that your position of "arms is arms is arms" means I can own a nuke and you can own a shoulder-fired antiaircraft gun. And that's just following your position to its logical conclusion.

What the Founders did know that you don't mention here, is that as time goes on there needed to be a remedy for changing the Constitution and specific Amendments in the event that, say, the country banned alcohol and then figured out that was a stupid idea. You know, unforeseen events that would have happened long after they were gone. And they did that.

You can accept the FACT that "arms" means any weapon, or you can continue to try twist the meaning of words to make you feel safer or whatever you are trying to do.

It does, and specifically it means Arms that were extant and conceivable at the time. If you're trying to claim the Founders could have envisioned submarines and drones and nukes and 3D printers and presumably heretofore unconceived inventions, and meant to include them as well, well ---- prove THAT.

You need to amend the constitution if you want to exclude certain types of arms.

Yep. Mentioned that right above, didn't I.

POGO if youre going to say what the founders intended you should post it,,,otherwise youre just blowing leftist smoke

it is well documented their intention was to have the people as well armed as the governemnt

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If somebody proposed a constitutional amendment to the 2A which stated that the term "arms" does not include nuclear weapons, do you think there would be any serious opposition to it?

That's not the real point, is it?

 

[progressive hunter]

Correct, it does not change the concept of "Arms". Nor did I ever claim it does.

It changes the (again) definition.

It doesn't do either. Arms are weapons. Weapons vary, and new weapons are invented, but the definition of a weapon does not change.

You don't want to accept what is blindingly obvious. Weapons can kill people. Better weapons do it more efficiently.

Indeed. Weapons do what they've always done, regardless of the technology. How they do it, and how much they do it, and how efficiently they do it, is what changes.

There's no point of disagreement there.

The founders knew that weapons or "arms" were deadly when they wrote the 2A. You are arguing that they would have changed their minds had the weapons been more efficient. PROVE IT.

That's your ass-sertion so YOU prove it.

I in fact stated the opposite, that your position of "arms is arms is arms" means I can own a nuke and you can own a shoulder-fired antiaircraft gun. And that's just following your position to its logical conclusion.

What the Founders did know that you don't mention here, is that as time goes on there needed to be a remedy for changing the Constitution and specific Amendments in the event that, say, the country banned alcohol and then figured out that was a stupid idea. You know, unforeseen events that would have happened long after they were gone. And they did that.

You can accept the FACT that "arms" means any weapon, or you can continue to try twist the meaning of words to make you feel safer or whatever you are trying to do.

It does, and specifically it means Arms that were extant and conceivable at the time. If you're trying to claim the Founders could have envisioned submarines and drones and nukes and 3D printers and presumably heretofore unconceived inventions, and meant to include them as well, well ---- prove THAT.

You need to amend the constitution if you want to exclude certain types of arms.

Yep. Mentioned that right above, didn't I.

Bear Arms


What the Framers said about our Second Amendment
Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

• "...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
  — Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)

• "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
  — Tench Coxe, in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution� under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian� in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1).

• "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
  — William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
  -- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

• "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
  -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

• If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
  -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

• "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
  -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

• "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
  --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

• "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
  --John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

• "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
  --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

• "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
  --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
  -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

• "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
  -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

• "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
  -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

• "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
  -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

• " ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
  -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

• " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
  -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

• "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
  -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

• "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
  -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

• "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
  -- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

• "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
  -- Zachariah Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

• "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
  -- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

• "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
  -- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

• " ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
  -- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

• "The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
  -- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
  

• "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
  --Samuel Adams

 

[Crepitus]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

How about this: we get strong gun control, you kids can have your silly wall.

How about this: No compromise with people who consider Constitutional rights and national sovereignty nuisances to do away with or reluctantly tolerate to get their way.

Ok, but I was perfectly willing to compromise with them.

 

[Pogo]

Indeed. Weapons do what they've always done, regardless of the technology. How they do it, and how much they do it, and how efficiently they do it, is what changes.

There's no point of disagreement there.

But, you seem to be arguing that the founders would not have included the 2A had the "arms" of today been around in 1781, right?

I am saying that you cannot prove that. The intent was ALL arms and if you want to change that, you need to do what the founders intended and AMEND.

That's your ass-sertion so YOU prove it.

Here is my proof, as they wrote it:

"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."

I in fact stated the opposite, that your position of "arms is arms is arms" means I can own a nuke and you can own a shoulder-fired antiaircraft gun. And that's just following your position to its logical conclusion.

Yes. Would that not be consistent with the intent of the founders to have a citizenry armed to the level necessary to defend the nation from attack?

Again, if you want to change it, you need to amend.

What the Founders did know that you don't mention here, is that as time goes on there needed to be a remedy for changing the Constitution and specific Amendments in the event that, say, the country banned alcohol and then figured out that was a stupid idea. You know, events that would have happened long after they were gone. And they did that.

Yes. Exactly. That's what I have been saying.

You need to amend.

It does, and specifically it means Arms that were extant and conceivable at the time. If you're trying to claim the Founders could have envisioned submarines and drones and nukes and 3D printers and presumably heretofore unconceived inventions, and meant to include them as well, well ---- prove THAT.

They intended to include ALL arms. If you want to change it....AMEND!!!

Yep. Mentioned that right above, didn't I.

Finally. You get my point.

You don't want to go through the difficult process of amending the constitution. You want to ignore the PLAIN LANGUAGE because you THINK the founders meant to limit the types of ARMS protected, which they clear didn't from the text of the 2A.

Now, can you admit that they intended that ALL arms were protected? Can you admit that you need a constitutional amendment to "fix" it now?

Fuck off with your "have you stopped beating your wife" questions, go learn how to read, and quit arguing stuff I never said in the first place..

 

[Pogo]

If somebody proposed a constitutional amendment to the 2A which stated that the term "arms" does not include nuclear weapons, do you think there would be any serious opposition to it?

That's not the real point, is it?

It is for now, yes. Here's how it works.

**IF** your premise is that "Arms means arms, regardless what technology makes them"....

**THEN** by your own standard, I can own that nuke and you can own that antiaircraft gun.

**IF** that is not the case, i.e. I can't own that nuke ----- then your premise fails.

Pick one.

 

[Pogo]

Correct, it does not change the concept of "Arms". Nor did I ever claim it does.

It changes the (again) definition.

It doesn't do either. Arms are weapons. Weapons vary, and new weapons are invented, but the definition of a weapon does not change.

You don't want to accept what is blindingly obvious. Weapons can kill people. Better weapons do it more efficiently.

Indeed. Weapons do what they've always done, regardless of the technology. How they do it, and how much they do it, and how efficiently they do it, is what changes.

There's no point of disagreement there.

The founders knew that weapons or "arms" were deadly when they wrote the 2A. You are arguing that they would have changed their minds had the weapons been more efficient. PROVE IT.

That's your ass-sertion so YOU prove it.

I in fact stated the opposite, that your position of "arms is arms is arms" means I can own a nuke and you can own a shoulder-fired antiaircraft gun. And that's just following your position to its logical conclusion.

What the Founders did know that you don't mention here, is that as time goes on there needed to be a remedy for changing the Constitution and specific Amendments in the event that, say, the country banned alcohol and then figured out that was a stupid idea. You know, unforeseen events that would have happened long after they were gone. And they did that.

You can accept the FACT that "arms" means any weapon, or you can continue to try twist the meaning of words to make you feel safer or whatever you are trying to do.

It does, and specifically it means Arms that were extant and conceivable at the time. If you're trying to claim the Founders could have envisioned submarines and drones and nukes and 3D printers and presumably heretofore unconceived inventions, and meant to include them as well, well ---- prove THAT.

You need to amend the constitution if you want to exclude certain types of arms.

Yep. Mentioned that right above, didn't I.

POGO if youre going to say what the founders intended you should post it,,,otherwise youre just blowing leftist smoke

it is well documented their intention was to have the people as well armed as the governemnt

Again for the Illiterati, number one my name is not an acronym; number two I cannot have any way to know "what the founders intended", nor can you, nor did I suggest such an idea; and number three if the intention is to have people as well-armed as the government, whelp the government has nukes, and drones, and entire military forces, so you and I should have them too. RIGHT?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It is for now, yes. Here's how it works.

**IF** your premise is that "Arms means arms, regardless what technology makes them"....

**THEN** by your own standard, I can own that nuke and you can own that antiaircraft gun.

**IF** that is not the case, i.e. I can't own that nuke ----- then your premise fails.

Pick one.

I already picked one. Arms means arms.

If you want to limit the type of arms, you should amend the constitution.

I said that I doubt there would be much opposition to a constitutional amendment excluding nukes, but nukes are still "arms" under pretty much any definition of the word, and a constitutional amendment would be necessary to exclude them.

 

[Pogo]

It is for now, yes. Here's how it works.

**IF** your premise is that "Arms means arms, regardless what technology makes them"....

**THEN** by your own standard, I can own that nuke and you can own that antiaircraft gun.

**IF** that is not the case, i.e. I can't own that nuke ----- then your premise fails.

Pick one.

I already picked one. Arms means arms.

If you want to limit the type of arms, you should amend the constitution.

I said that I doubt there would be much opposition to a constitutional amendment excluding nukes, but nukes are still "arms" under pretty much any definition of the word, and a constitutional amendment would be necessary to exclude them.

So then you and I can keep and bear nukes. And anything else.

Note that "keep and bear nukes" is not the same as "owning" nukes. I can keep and bear somebody else's nuke. You can too. Highest bidder.

 

[progressive hunter]

Correct, it does not change the concept of "Arms". Nor did I ever claim it does.

It changes the (again) definition.

It doesn't do either. Arms are weapons. Weapons vary, and new weapons are invented, but the definition of a weapon does not change.

You don't want to accept what is blindingly obvious. Weapons can kill people. Better weapons do it more efficiently.

Indeed. Weapons do what they've always done, regardless of the technology. How they do it, and how much they do it, and how efficiently they do it, is what changes.

There's no point of disagreement there.

The founders knew that weapons or "arms" were deadly when they wrote the 2A. You are arguing that they would have changed their minds had the weapons been more efficient. PROVE IT.

That's your ass-sertion so YOU prove it.

I in fact stated the opposite, that your position of "arms is arms is arms" means I can own a nuke and you can own a shoulder-fired antiaircraft gun. And that's just following your position to its logical conclusion.

What the Founders did know that you don't mention here, is that as time goes on there needed to be a remedy for changing the Constitution and specific Amendments in the event that, say, the country banned alcohol and then figured out that was a stupid idea. You know, unforeseen events that would have happened long after they were gone. And they did that.

You can accept the FACT that "arms" means any weapon, or you can continue to try twist the meaning of words to make you feel safer or whatever you are trying to do.

It does, and specifically it means Arms that were extant and conceivable at the time. If you're trying to claim the Founders could have envisioned submarines and drones and nukes and 3D printers and presumably heretofore unconceived inventions, and meant to include them as well, well ---- prove THAT.

You need to amend the constitution if you want to exclude certain types of arms.

Yep. Mentioned that right above, didn't I.

POGO if youre going to say what the founders intended you should post it,,,otherwise youre just blowing leftist smoke

it is well documented their intention was to have the people as well armed as the governemnt

Again for the Illiterati, number one my name is not an acronym; number two I cannot have any way to know "what the founders intended", nor can you, nor did I suggest such an idea; and number three if the intention is to have people as well-armed as the government, whelp the government has nukes, and drones, and entire military forces, so you and I should have them too. RIGHT?

WHAT???
of course you can know what they meant since the wrote it all down, and I posted a lot of them,,,

and what sense would it make if we were intended to defend the country if we werent as well armed as the ones attacking us


and I already said those that have nukes dont even go through the same check as we do for a revolver


you are purposely making yourself ignorant

 

[progressive hunter]

It is for now, yes. Here's how it works.

**IF** your premise is that "Arms means arms, regardless what technology makes them"....

**THEN** by your own standard, I can own that nuke and you can own that antiaircraft gun.

**IF** that is not the case, i.e. I can't own that nuke ----- then your premise fails.

Pick one.

I already picked one. Arms means arms.

If you want to limit the type of arms, you should amend the constitution.

I said that I doubt there would be much opposition to a constitutional amendment excluding nukes, but nukes are still "arms" under pretty much any definition of the word, and a constitutional amendment would be necessary to exclude them.

So then you and I can keep and bear nukes. And anything else.

Note that "keep and bear nukes" is not the same as "owning" nukes. I can keep and bear somebody else's nuke. You can too. Highest bidder.

it takes a lot of stupid to ignore so much and say that

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So then you and I can keep and bear nukes. And anything else.

Note that "keep and bear nukes" is not the same as "owning" nukes. I can keep and bear somebody else's nuke. You can too. Highest bidder.

Yes, according to the 2A.

Like I said, if you don't like it....CHANGE IT!!!

No, you want to parse words and "interpret" your way around the CLEAR language of the 2A.

Besides, no citizen owns nukes.

Have you thought that argument through all the way?

Iran---the entire fucking country of Iran---has been trying to get nukes for decades.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008. I voted for him in 2012 because I fucking hate Mormons with a passion that would blot out suns.

Frankly, running a business (you inherited from your dad who did all the real work) doesn't really prepare you for running a government, as Trump is demonstrating amply now.

I see you never addressed that comprehension problem either. I said he ran or owned over 500 businesses. HIs father was just a real estate guy.

Well, at least she got something out of it.. that's the point. Enlightened self interest. If you have half the population voting for free stuff, it's because you've made it so hard for them to get it on their own.

Nothing hard about getting a cell phone on your own. Get a job and pay for it like everybody else.

Naw, man, I just enjoy needling you about it. The best thing in the world for you in your situation would be to have Single Payer, where they don't care who you work for or how sick you are... you get covered.

I think you're just sacred of what the doctor might say. Perhaps even you know how bad of a problem you have.

Why should anyone need to get an ID to practice a human right.

And, yes, SCOTUS had no idea what they were talking about in Heller...

Obviously they did and that's why Americans being armed are protected by the Constitution.

Voting is a human right? When did that happen? A human right is a right everybody on earth has. And trust me, if you don't have the smarts to get an ID (which even a mentally retarded person does) then you're not smart enough to vote either.

 

[Crixus]

If somebody proposed a constitutional amendment to the 2A which stated that the term "arms" does not include nuclear weapons, do you think there would be any serious opposition to it?

That's not the real point, is it?

It is for now, yes. Here's how it works.

**IF** your premise is that "Arms means arms, regardless what technology makes them"....

**THEN** by your own standard, I can own that nuke and you can own that antiaircraft gun.

**IF** that is not the case, i.e. I can't own that nuke ----- then your premise fails.

Pick one.

Tired old deflection on this topic.

 

[Pogo]

So then you and I can keep and bear nukes. And anything else.

Note that "keep and bear nukes" is not the same as "owning" nukes. I can keep and bear somebody else's nuke. You can too. Highest bidder.

Yes, according to the 2A.

Like I said, if you don't like it....CHANGE IT!!!

No, you want to parse words and "interpret" your way around the CLEAR language of the 2A.

Besides, no citizen owns nukes.

Have you thought that argument through all the way?

Iran---the entire fucking country of Iran---has been trying to get nukes for decades.

Actually I've posted absolutely nothing about "what I 'like'". I've been posting about what *IS*.