NRA issues threatening video to intimidate opponents

[kaz]

The Constitution doesn't mention radioactive materials, because they didn't exist

I'm surprised you don't understand what the Constitution is. The Constitution cedes specific powers to the Federal government and restricts all other powers from them. Again, it restricts all other powers from them, it does not grant all other powers to them.

So think about what you said. "radioactive materials ... didn't exist."

If you understand what the Constitution actually is, that means by default that the Federal government by has NO say over radioactive materials unless the people give them that say. Read the 10th amendment.

The people have the power to amend the Constitution and give the Federal government power of regulating radioactive materials. The process is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They have not done that. Therefore, the Feds do not have a legitimate Constitutional power over radioactive materials.

The State governments can however say killing your neighbors with radioactive materials is murder.

Also, the idea that the second amendment only applies to muskets is silly. Obviously they means arms as they advance technilogically. Nowhere in the Constitution or their private writings did they say they meant muskets.

In fact they strongly contradict that as they did often write that they wanted the people to be armed as well as the government and obviously they didn't want to limit the government to muskets either

 

[kaz]

Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

She is arguing that if you admit don't have the right to weapons grade plutonium then you have no right to any gun other than what government decides to allow you to have. Yes, it is that stupid.

Basically, rather than protecting our rights as we mistakenly believe, Taz is informing us that the second amendment is actually a power of government to decide what guns we may or may not have

Don't forget to mention where we're all supposed to be as stupid as Taz and believe there's some direct corollary between firearms and radioactive materials.

So our Constitution purposely leaves us outgunned by a tyrannical government?

Wow, and Taz finally gets one on the scoreboard. Now it's

Cecilia - 87, Taz 1

That was the intent of the founders even if you're insincere in the argument

 

[kaz]

Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

Where does it says that you can’t have a nuke?

I'm withdrawing your right to answer questions again since you're ignoring every question you're asked, but to repeat. Explain how you get nukes without affecting the rights of other citizens to not do things like die of radiation poisoning.

You threw out having a large enough farm as if that explained where you'd get the radioactive material and how you'd store and utilize it

The government manages to do it, then so can anyone else. Or do you consider yourself dumber than the government?

Your right to ask questions has been withdrawn until this is a conversation where you actually answer questions and respond to points rather than ignoring them all and expecting your questions be answered.

 

[boedicca]

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

It doesn't. The 2nd Amendment covers "Arms", which are personally held weapons. Bombs, missiles, cannons, etc. are "Ordnance" or "Artillery". Conflating the two is a tactic the anti-guns types use.

That is an interesting point, "arms" may have meant that in the 18th century.

It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

 

[kaz]

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

It doesn't. The 2nd Amendment covers "Arms", which are personally held weapons. Bombs, missiles, cannons, etc. are "Ordnance" or "Artillery". Conflating the two is a tactic the anti-guns types use.

That is an interesting point, "arms" may have meant that in the 18th century.

It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

 

[boedicca]

It doesn't. The 2nd Amendment covers "Arms", which are personally held weapons. Bombs, missiles, cannons, etc. are "Ordnance" or "Artillery". Conflating the two is a tactic the anti-guns types use.

That is an interesting point, "arms" may have meant that in the 18th century.

It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

 

[Taz]

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

Where does it says that you can’t have a nuke?

I'm withdrawing your right to answer questions again since you're ignoring every question you're asked, but to repeat. Explain how you get nukes without affecting the rights of other citizens to not do things like die of radiation poisoning.

You threw out having a large enough farm as if that explained where you'd get the radioactive material and how you'd store and utilize it

The government manages to do it, then so can anyone else. Or do you consider yourself dumber than the government?

Your right to ask questions has been withdrawn until this is a conversation where you actually answer questions and respond to points rather than ignoring them all and expecting your questions be answered.

Your concession has been duly noted.

 

[kaz]

That is an interesting point, "arms" may have meant that in the 18th century.

It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Yes, I always understood we're in agreement on that

 

[kaz]

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

Where does it says that you can’t have a nuke?

I'm withdrawing your right to answer questions again since you're ignoring every question you're asked, but to repeat. Explain how you get nukes without affecting the rights of other citizens to not do things like die of radiation poisoning.

You threw out having a large enough farm as if that explained where you'd get the radioactive material and how you'd store and utilize it

The government manages to do it, then so can anyone else. Or do you consider yourself dumber than the government?

Your right to ask questions has been withdrawn until this is a conversation where you actually answer questions and respond to points rather than ignoring them all and expecting your questions be answered.

Your concession has been duly noted.

You're a bizarre little thing.

So you ignoring my questions isn't you conceding, oh no, not at all.

When I say I'm not going to answer your questions until you answer mine, that's me conceding.

But you not answering my questions wasn't.

Damn you're dumb. In your case, vote how your husband tells you to. You're not smart enough to make up your own mind. Someone needs to do it for you

 

[Taz]

That is an interesting point, "arms" may have meant that in the 18th century.

It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

 

[Taz]

Where does it says that you can’t have a nuke?

I'm withdrawing your right to answer questions again since you're ignoring every question you're asked, but to repeat. Explain how you get nukes without affecting the rights of other citizens to not do things like die of radiation poisoning.

You threw out having a large enough farm as if that explained where you'd get the radioactive material and how you'd store and utilize it

The government manages to do it, then so can anyone else. Or do you consider yourself dumber than the government?

Your right to ask questions has been withdrawn until this is a conversation where you actually answer questions and respond to points rather than ignoring them all and expecting your questions be answered.

Your concession has been duly noted.

You're a bizarre little thing.

So you ignoring my questions isn't you conceding, oh no, not at all.

When I say I'm not going to answer your questions until you answer mine, that's me conceding.

But you not answering my questions wasn't.

Damn you're dumb. In your case, vote how your husband tells you to. You're not smart enough to make up your own mind. Someone needs to do it for you

You still on about your baby locked in the crib? What was that all about anyways, or ask me anything else, go ahead.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

So I guess you won't take my bet huh?

100 bucks a day for every day I don't eat my gun as you predicted I would

Put your money where your mouth is

 

[Taz]

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

So I guess you won't take my bet huh?

100 bucks a day for every day I don't eat my gun as you predicted I would

Put your money where your mouth is

That wasn't the bet, lol. It was $20 says you eventually eat your gun. Brah, it was a joke. A mod even warned me over that, LOL!!!!

 

[hunarcy]

Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

Where does it says that you can’t have a nuke?

Where it says you can keep and bear arms, not ordinance.

So the Constitution allowed people to have guns to guard against a tyrannical government that outguns them?

If you say so. I don't think that's the only reason to have firearms, myself, but if you are worried about a tyrannical government, there you are.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

So I guess you won't take my bet huh?

100 bucks a day for every day I don't eat my gun as you predicted I would

Put your money where your mouth is

That wasn't the bet, lol. It was $20 says you eventually eat your gun. Brah, it was a joke. A mod even warned me over that, LOL!!!!

I counteroffered

You pussied out

 

[JimH52]

It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

THEY AIN'T GETTING MY DAMN GUNS! I LOVE MY GUNS! I OCCASIONALLY MAKE LOVE TO MY GUNS....

 

[boedicca]

It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

 

[boedicca]

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

THEY AIN'T GETTING MY DAMN GUNS! I LOVE MY GUNS! I OCCASIONALLY MAKE LOVE TO MY GUNS....

This is hardly a surprising revelation. Given that you are unable to tell one gender from another, it was inevitable that you would descend into the inability to distinguish humans from objects.

 

[Taz]

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

You're already letting the government restricts all kinds of weapons, and put an age restriction on the 2nd, thereby infringing on it. So you cherry-pick your outrage by falsely claiming a difference between AA missiles and arms. The FFs made no such distinction and it was not their intention to make the citizenry be outgunned by a tyrannical government.

 

[JimH52]

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

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.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.

Read and Learn

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns