Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Specious argument at best. It presupposes that guns are not useful for killing due to their size, abundance, and affordability. If that's true, then they're useless for self-defense, something that even Republicans and especially the NRA won't admit to.
Well, hold those goof-wads in the NRA down and tickle their feet until they admit to all you want them to ...... That's about the extent of your argument reaches.
Okay, so you're willfully missing my point. If that's the way you want to converse, then congrats. Not very effective, though.
I'm aware of that but you still missed the point. Those who claim that citizens should only be allowed access to the firearms that existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution forget the fact that that application of restriction must apply to all the amendments equally.Missed the point, didn'tcha........They also had manual printing presses, no telegraph, no phones, no internet, no email. Using your obvious reference to firearms non-existance at the time what applies to one applies to all...........the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.
not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons
Haven't seen a phone or telegraph kill anyone with a projectile traveling at 1800 meters per second.
Uh, no. I think you did. The rapid manner in which technology has changed for purposes of speech has been frequently addressed with time, place and manner restrictions. Just because something is an enumerated right doesn't mean it's limitless. That should matter infinitely more when it comes to items made to kill, as opposed to items made to pass along ideas.
I'm aware of that but you still missed the point. Those who claim that citizens should only be allowed access to the firearms that existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution forget the fact that that application of restriction must apply to all the amendments equally.Missed the point, didn'tcha........They also had manual printing presses, no telegraph, no phones, no internet, no email. Using your obvious reference to firearms non-existance at the time what applies to one applies to all...........the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.
not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons
Haven't seen a phone or telegraph kill anyone with a projectile traveling at 1800 meters per second.
Uh, no. I think you did. The rapid manner in which technology has changed for purposes of speech has been frequently addressed with time, place and manner restrictions. Just because something is an enumerated right doesn't mean it's limitless. That should matter infinitely more when it comes to items made to kill, as opposed to items made to pass along ideas.
Again, what does the advances in technology have to do with the Constitution? Also, again, there are mechanisms built in to make changes, those mechanisms were put there for a reason, if you have a problem with a specific amendment use the processes to make the changes you want, if you can.
We will have to agree to disagree then as based on 'Original Intent' I disagree with both you and SCOTUS in both those areas.I'm aware of that but you still missed the point. Those who claim that citizens should only be allowed access to the firearms that existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution forget the fact that that application of restriction must apply to all the amendments equally.Missed the point, didn'tcha........They also had manual printing presses, no telegraph, no phones, no internet, no email. Using your obvious reference to firearms non-existance at the time what applies to one applies to all...........
Haven't seen a phone or telegraph kill anyone with a projectile traveling at 1800 meters per second.
Uh, no. I think you did. The rapid manner in which technology has changed for purposes of speech has been frequently addressed with time, place and manner restrictions. Just because something is an enumerated right doesn't mean it's limitless. That should matter infinitely more when it comes to items made to kill, as opposed to items made to pass along ideas.
Again, what does the advances in technology have to do with the Constitution? Also, again, there are mechanisms built in to make changes, those mechanisms were put there for a reason, if you have a problem with a specific amendment use the processes to make the changes you want, if you can.
First, there is absolutely no such doctrine in constitutional jurisprudence that requires all amendments to be dealt with equally, and I challenge you to find one.
Second, SCOTUS evaluates the level of appropriate federal restrictions based on changing societal landscape all the time. They've done it with many amendments, especially the 4th, which puts restrictions on what you can search in a cell phone, etc. Why wouldn't a restriction on newer technologies with guns be appropriate in light of that fact?
First, there is absolutely no such doctrine in constitutional jurisprudence that requires all amendments to be dealt with equally, and I challenge you to find one.
Second, SCOTUS evaluates the level of appropriate federal restrictions based on changing societal landscape all the time. They've done it with many amendments, especially the 4th, which puts restrictions on what you can search in a cell phone, etc. Why wouldn't a restriction on newer technologies with guns be appropriate in light of that fact?
every american is allowed to have arms in a well regulated militia.
im paraphrasing
what kind of arms is an american allowed to have ?
rifles ? tanks ? nuclear weapons ?
hey wait. it said "in a well regulated militia"
so does that mean that americans aren t allowed to have arms outside a well regulated militia ?
what do you think ?
what are arms ? a muzzleloaded musket ? or a laser guided Assault rifle ? or a nuclear bomb ? are americans allowed to have nuclear bombs ?
and do they have the right to bear this arms outside a well regulated militia ?
Uummmm, like I told you there's a process to do that, it can take years if not decades.just change the constitution to the reality of 2016 please
hunters may have rifles
everyone else not. no need for guns the wild west is gone for 100 years
if you want to bear arms join a national guard.
you can even fly supersonic jet fighters there
just change the constitution to the reality of 2016 please
hunters may have rifles
everyone else not. no need for guns the wild west is gone for 100 years
if you want to bear arms join a national guard.
you can even fly supersonic jet fighters there
the police is capable of ensuring law nation wide.
no need for guns
get rid of guns and the bad guys can t have them
The Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution........ And it takes three fourths of the States to ratify any changes.theres ways to amend the constitution without the suprteme court
2/3 parliament
2/3 states
no supreme court
2/3 of peole rule above president senate parliament or supreme court.
the people rule
.. thats why i like the USA
What planet do you live on?and if guns are gone the police can relax
no need to kill
no guns
the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.
not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons
I have a sterling record as a gun control advocate on this board. I believe that assault weapons are, in fact, a public health hazard.the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.
not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons
I have a sterling record as a gun control advocate on this board. I believe that assault weapons are, in fact, a public health hazard.the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.
not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons
But I understand that the constitution is elastic enough to cover changes in technology. Certainly the founding fathers could not conceive of machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, thermonuclear warheads.
But the could not envisage computers, telephones and the internet either. When the 4th amendment speaks of unwarranted searches and seizures of 'letters', we understand that this extends to computers and e-mails as well. Faxes, telephone communications, and personal messages are just as private as posted letters.
Let us then assume that semi-automatic weapons, as dangerous and unnecessary as they are, can be considered 'arms' under the meaning of the second amendment.
Now, the constitution was written for the people. It is not a suicide pact. It is, in fact, an elastic document that serves successive generations as it served our predecessors.
