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.
"A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living creatures, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary or enemy target."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.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, we are just fine with restricting the Second Amendment to the actual wording of the Amendment. Dingbat leftists trying to sound clever are the only people I know who think tactical nukes are in any way equivalent to personal weapons.
Pardon us for "cherrypicking" things that make actual, logical sense, rather than just blathering the first insane thing that pops into our heads and expecting to be applauded for our "brilliance". Mature adults are funny that way.
I was trying to show them that they are ok with limiting the 2nd under some circumstances, like for children. They're pissed at realizing that they agree to limit the 2nd because their other arguments not to touch the 2nd over guns falls apart.I don't get the analogy with the nap, do you have a right to a nap in the Constitution?I said Arab-Americans, not Muslims. You lose. Better luck next time.You brought up Muslims with nukes, you whack job hoe.
You're not an Archie Bunker, you're more an Edith dingbat, aren't you?
My favorite is still how you argued children can buy guns, but then you didn't get why children can't be forced to take a nap if they can buy guns. You're not the most colorful tulip in the garden, are you?
As for children with guns, the 2nd doesn't disallow it.
So race is OK with you to discriminate but not religion. Thanks for clarifying.
You didn't answer my question ... again. If children cannot be denied the right to buy a gun, how can you force a children to take a nap? How are you so dim you can't grasp that contradiction?
I'm not saying Arabs shouldn't be able to buy guns (although not a terrible idea). Geez, lucky for you that you didn't have to pass an IQ test to get a weapon.
I keep saying "force" a child to take a nap. I also said you put them in a crib and detain them against their will. You admitted you can't do that to an adult. That is a violation of equal protection if the child has 14th amendment rights. You cannot forcibly detain an adult. If a child has the same rights, you can't forcibly detain them either. How do you not get that?
You're arguing the child has 2nd amendment rights, it does not have 14th amendment rights. You lose.
You really aren't very smart. No wonder your other arguments are so bad.
there are many rights that are limited until adulthood.... I'm not quite sure what the confusion is here.
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.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.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.
No, it most certainly is NOT agreement that the government can restrict the rights of individuals to own ARMS.
I was trying to show them that they are ok with limiting the 2nd under some circumstances, like for children. They're pissed at realizing that they agree to limit the 2nd because their other arguments not to touch the 2nd over guns falls apart.I don't get the analogy with the nap, do you have a right to a nap in the Constitution?I said Arab-Americans, not Muslims. You lose. Better luck next time.
As for children with guns, the 2nd doesn't disallow it.
So race is OK with you to discriminate but not religion. Thanks for clarifying.
You didn't answer my question ... again. If children cannot be denied the right to buy a gun, how can you force a children to take a nap? How are you so dim you can't grasp that contradiction?
I'm not saying Arabs shouldn't be able to buy guns (although not a terrible idea
I keep saying "force" a child to take a nap. I also said you put them in a crib and detain them against their will. You admitted you can't do that to an adult. That is a violation of equal protection if the child has 14th amendment rights. You cannot forcibly detain an adult. If a child has the same rights, you can't forcibly detain them either. How do you not get that?
You're arguing the child has 2nd amendment rights, it does not have 14th amendment rights. You lose.
You really aren't very smart. No wonder your other arguments are so bad.
there are many rights that are limited until adulthood.... I'm not quite sure what the confusion is here.
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.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.
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
Children have rights under the Constitution, now you know.I never mentioned naps, you did. Strawman fail.The 2nd makes no age restriction on purpose. Or are you saying that the FFs didn't know what they were doing?You argued that children have the same Constitutional rights as adults. That was YOUR argument, hoe, not mine. Man up to your crap.
Taz - Children have full Constitutional rights, so if you don't believe children should be able to take a gun to school, then you don't believe in the right to bear arms
Taz - what do you mean I'm saying children don't have to take a nap. I was being serious, what is this silly argument?
Yeah, that children can take guns to schools, that was your serious argument. You're a dumb bimbo beyond what I could make up
Children can buy guns, but you can't force them to take a nap. You mentioned that. You're an awful debater. I'm glad you're on the left's side
You said the Constitution applies equally to children. Now you're saying it doesn't. There's a word for that, hypocrite.
Ask your husband what to think. You simply aren't smart enough to do it yourself. It's painful to watch
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.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.
THEY AIN'T GETTING MY DAMN GUNS! I LOVE MY GUNS! I OCCASIONALLY MAKE LOVE TO MY GUNS....
That leftists equate sex with guns is yet another example of how pathetically sick you idiots are
That's different than a nap, now you're adding all kinds of things. So let see, my kids have wandered off in a store, went in the basement unsupervised, got down from the table on their own, went into the yard (assuming they were old enough to know how to open a door), never ran out into the street though because they're not retards, and I can't get them to go or stay anywhere they don't want to be. Does that answer your questions?A child WANTS to take a nap, I'm not forcing anyone to take a nap. I've had children, so I know. And I've NEVER locked a child in a crib, you must be a sicko. So, um... looks like you failed EPICALLY again.No. And?Where did I say that? You made that up for lack of a real argument.
Is it Constitutional for you to detain an adult against their will in your house?
OMG. OK, fine, I'll really, really dumb this down for you.
The equal protection clause says you cannot treat people differently under the law.
There is no age stated on the equal protection clause, there is no age stated on the second amendment.
You agreed you cannot detain an adult against their will, but you are arguing that you can detain a child against their will.
You are contradicting yourself. You are arguing equal protection does not apply to children, but the second amendment does apply to children.
That's what happens when you argue the stupid crap you argue. You contradict yourself all the time and you're just too dim witted to see it.
You cannot have it both ways. Either it's Unconstitutional to force a child to take a nap, or it's not Unconstitutional for a child to not be able to buy a gun
You never forcibly detained your children. You never made your children stay in their crib, a playpen or their room. If they wanted to wander off in the store, go into the basement unsupervised, get down from the table, go into the yard, run out into the street, you tried to persuade them, but you never forced them to stay anywhere against their will.
Gawd you're a liar.
It's hilarious how every time you're pressed, your arguments get even more pathetic
Ok, so you agree that under certain circumstances, the 2nd Amendment can be limited. Gawd, that was hard.Children have rights under the Constitution, now you know.I never mentioned naps, you did. Strawman fail.The 2nd makes no age restriction on purpose. Or are you saying that the FFs didn't know what they were doing?
Children can buy guns, but you can't force them to take a nap. You mentioned that. You're an awful debater. I'm glad you're on the left's side
You said the Constitution applies equally to children. Now you're saying it doesn't. There's a word for that, hypocrite.
Ask your husband what to think. You simply aren't smart enough to do it yourself. It's painful to watch
False. People who live in your house have bedrooms. When someone comes to your house, you offer them the guest room. They don't have the right to a bedroom like a member of your family who live there. You are extending a courtesy.
We extend most Constitutional rights to children, but we make decisions about what rights they do and don't get. You're just not very smart and don't know the difference.
Your argument you could detain your children against their will but they can buy guns is just a flagrant hypocrisy and you lose because you don't have a consistent standard. And that ignores that you can't provide a link for that lie because it's just not true.
No one argues that children are entitled to full Constitutional rights except you
I do recognize the difference between individual arms ("Arms"), and Ordnance such as mounted cannons, missiles, etc. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear regarding ARMS. You can play word games all you like, but the two concepts have distinct meanings
Actually, arms and ammunition are both ordinances. Granted ordinances is broader than arms, I'm not saying they are synonymous. But they aren't distinct. All arms and weapons are ordinances.
It's like saying mammals are animals. It's a true statement. But not all animals are mammals.
But again, there is no Constitutionally authorized. Federal power to limit citizens from having ordinances either.
As for children, she's just that stupid.
Taz: Children have the right to buy guns or you're infringing on their rights because Children have full Constitutional rights
Taz: What do you mean you can't force a child to take a nap? They don't have full Constitutional rights!
She's an airhead
I'm addressing the language in use at the time the Bill of Rights was written. i.e., in government inventory lists, guns, swords, individually held weapons were categorized as Arms; cannons and such were labelled Ordnance. And yes, the over all category is Ordnance, but I do think that the right of individuals to own and bear individually held weapons is distinctive
But they also recognized that the people should be as well armed as the government. It's hard to believe that they believed that and yet that government could advance it's military capability and the people couldn't. Clearly military ordinance is required to maintain any balance.
I am not arguing that the people could defeat the US military. If it came to that point, the military would be at worst split and more likely largely on the side of the people. I can't conceive of a serious conflict where all the military people I know would fight their families and all the ex-military people who are back in their communities who would be on the people's side against our repressive government.
I view it as in that split, we should be armed well enough to fight with those of us checking our oppressive government. I no longer recognize the US Federal government as legitimate because it ignores the limits placed on it by the people, the Constitution. Most people including most Republicans are not seeing that fully yet. Hopefully they will get there before it's too late
I agree that you SHOULD have the right to these weapon, but we don't, that's my point. My other point is that nobody seems to care about that, they only care about guns, in a cherry-picking kind of way.But it's not just nukes that they have more than your guns, they have tanks, mortars, bombs, cruise missiles AA missiles... all kinds of things that you're not allowed to have. Nukes was just an example.So our Constitution purposely leaves us outgunned by a tyrannical government?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.
Only if you assume the government is going to nuke its own territory, and leave itself governing nothing but empty, radioactive wasteland.
But then, you're probably stupid enough to actually think that.
You should be able to have all those things as long as you do it without violating the rights of other citizens.
And the hypocrite who thinks children have 2nd amendment rights but not 14th amendment equal protection rights trying to show this is a conflicting argument is hysterical
I said Arab-Americans, not Muslims. You lose. Better luck next time.So the 2nd Amendment is applied along religious lines? Didn't know that. And the 2nd Amendment has an age restriction? Where?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.
Wow, you showed that we're the extremists because we don't want Muslims to have nuclear weapons and we don't want children armed in schools.
And you think that shows we are the whack jobs. You seriously believe that.
I'm just laughing at you now
You brought up Muslims with nukes, you whack job hoe.
You're not an Archie Bunker, you're more an Edith dingbat, aren't you?
My favorite is still how you argued children can buy guns, but then you didn't get why children can't be forced to take a nap if they can buy guns. You're not the most colorful tulip in the garden, are you?
As for children with guns, the 2nd doesn't disallow it.
So race is OK with you to discriminate but not religion. Thanks for clarifying.
You didn't answer my question ... again. If children cannot be denied the right to buy a gun, how can you force a children to take a nap? How are you so dim you can't grasp that contradiction?
Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.That is an interesting point, "arms" may have meant that in the 18th century.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.
It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".
It doesn't have to. You're laboring under the delusion that the Constitution grants and withholds rights, and it doesn't. It recognizes certain rights as important enough to need specific protection. If something is not mentioned specifically as inviolable, then it can be regulated. Artillery isn't mentioned. Doesn't mean you can't necessarily own it; just means its ownership is not a specifically-recognized right.
"A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living creatures, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary or enemy target."Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.That is an interesting point, "arms" may have meant that in the 18th century.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.
It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".
It doesn't have to. You're laboring under the delusion that the Constitution grants and withholds rights, and it doesn't. It recognizes certain rights as important enough to need specific protection. If something is not mentioned specifically as inviolable, then it can be regulated. Artillery isn't mentioned. Doesn't mean you can't necessarily own it; just means its ownership is not a specifically-recognized right.
Weapon - Wikipedia
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.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, we are just fine with restricting the Second Amendment to the actual wording of the Amendment. Dingbat leftists trying to sound clever are the only people I know who think tactical nukes are in any way equivalent to personal weapons.
Pardon us for "cherrypicking" things that make actual, logical sense, rather than just blathering the first insane thing that pops into our heads and expecting to be applauded for our "brilliance". Mature adults are funny that way.
We had cannons as well.So the Constitution allowed people to have guns to guard against a tyrannical government that outguns them?Where does it says that you can’t have a nuke?where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?
Where it says you can keep and bear arms, not ordinance.
You DO realize that we won the Revolutionary War that way, right?
But it's not just nukes that they have more than your guns, they have tanks, mortars, bombs, cruise missiles AA missiles... all kinds of things that you're not allowed to have. Nukes was just an example.So our Constitution purposely leaves us outgunned by a tyrannical government?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.
Only if you assume the government is going to nuke its own territory, and leave itself governing nothing but empty, radioactive wasteland.
But then, you're probably stupid enough to actually think that.
But a rich Arab-American might want to purchase a nuke or any other weapons we're currently not allowed to have, so practical applications are out there. You're just happy cherry-picking your outrage. Got it.I agree that you SHOULD have the right to these weapon, but we don't, that's my point. My other point is that nobody seems to care about that, they only care about guns, in a cherry-picking kind of way.But it's not just nukes that they have more than your guns, they have tanks, mortars, bombs, cruise missiles AA missiles... all kinds of things that you're not allowed to have. Nukes was just an example.So our Constitution purposely leaves us outgunned by a tyrannical government?
Only if you assume the government is going to nuke its own territory, and leave itself governing nothing but empty, radioactive wasteland.
But then, you're probably stupid enough to actually think that.
You should be able to have all those things as long as you do it without violating the rights of other citizens.
And the hypocrite who thinks children have 2nd amendment rights but not 14th amendment equal protection rights trying to show this is a conflicting argument is hysterical
As you know, I do support those rights. But of course the discussion is more about guns since that is the primary issue that effects us right now. You cannot assign to your opposition what you think their priority should be.
I am against capital punishment. But it's not a big issue to me. I wouldn't go to a demonstration.
I cannot agree with my theoretical right to nuclear weapons being blocked by our government, but I see no practical application of that since I don't have any idea why I would want them or if I did how I would do that without killing my neighbors with radiation.
It's not a real argument to tell people you want to assign our priorities.
Your restricting my ability to defend myself is directly impacting my life today. Of course that's my priority
They didn't have superior weapons. They would now.We had cannons as well.So the Constitution allowed people to have guns to guard against a tyrannical government that outguns them?Where does it says that you can’t have a nuke?
Where it says you can keep and bear arms, not ordinance.
You DO realize that we won the Revolutionary War that way, right?
Which is relevant to what I said how? Are you arguing that we WEREN'T going up against a superior military?
It's to point out that you're ok with your 2nd Amendment rights being infringed on, so your argument about protecting your 2nd rights in the gun debate is bullshit.But it's not just nukes that they have more than your guns, they have tanks, mortars, bombs, cruise missiles AA missiles... all kinds of things that you're not allowed to have. Nukes was just an example.So our Constitution purposely leaves us outgunned by a tyrannical government?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.
Only if you assume the government is going to nuke its own territory, and leave itself governing nothing but empty, radioactive wasteland.
But then, you're probably stupid enough to actually think that.
And again, your point is WHAT, precisely? That we should just concede our freedoms, disarm entirely, and become vulnerable wards of the state? I mean, seriously. Relate this to some kind of intelligent, logical, mature statement of position, here.
