NRA issues threatening video to intimidate opponents

[Cecilie1200]

Ok, forget nukes for a sec (that seems too difficult for some of you to grasp), what about AA missiles? Can a self-professed patriotic American like Sunni claims to be buy anti-aircraft missiles? What about cluster bombs?

Not a matter of "difficult". It's a matter of "completely ludicrous and not comparable except to 5th-grade minds".

It's obviously up to the others if they want to indulge you in this extremist pretense of analogy, but I'm personally done with the trip through Wonderland. There is no amount of "what about . . ." that is going to invalidate the right to keep and bear arms, or that is going to convince people to surrender that right. Post something related to reality.

You just indulged me, thanks. And you had no valid argument to counter my claim. Better luck next time.

Since you're the only one who defines "valid" as "what the left wants to hear", you basically just admitted that YOU have no valid point to make. All you're trying to do here is parse words and hairsplit and create tangents to obscure any possibility of a rational, reality-based discussion that MIGHT lead to real improvements to make people safer.

As far as I'm concerned, you've just put the substance to the claim that the left wants enough children to die to let them repeal the 2nd Amendment, and refuses to accept any and all proposals that might save lives and thus interfere with their agenda and goal.

 

[JimH52]

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

Civilians will NEVER be as well armed as government. How many civilian friends have grenade launchers....sub machine guns or tanks? That argument is not valid. The only person I know that would be willing to abuse the power government has with it's weapons is trump. Remember...

"Tell me again why we can't use nuclear weapons?"

 

[boedicca]

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

Civilians will NEVER be as well armed as government. How many civilian friends have grenade launchers....sub machine guns or tanks? That argument is not valid. The only person I know that would be willing to abuse the power government has with it's weapons is trump. Remember...

"Tell me again why we can't use nuclear weapons?"

I suggest you read this...because the Feds attacking civilians would cause a 2nd Civil War.

Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

 

[JimH52]

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

Civilians will NEVER be as well armed as government. How many civilian friends have grenade launchers....sub machine guns or tanks? That argument is not valid. The only person I know that would be willing to abuse the power government has with it's weapons is trump. Remember...

"Tell me again why we can't use nuclear weapons?"

I suggest you read this...because the Feds attacking civilians would cause a 2nd Civil War.

Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

Save it for Alex Jones.....he survives off conspiracy theories....

 

[boedicca]

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

Civilians will NEVER be as well armed as government. How many civilian friends have grenade launchers....sub machine guns or tanks? That argument is not valid. The only person I know that would be willing to abuse the power government has with it's weapons is trump. Remember...

"Tell me again why we can't use nuclear weapons?"

I suggest you read this...because the Feds attacking civilians would cause a 2nd Civil War.

Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

Save it for Alex Jones.....he survives off conspiracy theories....

An analysis is not a conspiracy therory, despite the spin from you LW loons.

 

[JimH52]

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

Civilians will NEVER be as well armed as government. How many civilian friends have grenade launchers....sub machine guns or tanks? That argument is not valid. The only person I know that would be willing to abuse the power government has with it's weapons is trump. Remember...

"Tell me again why we can't use nuclear weapons?"

I suggest you read this...because the Feds attacking civilians would cause a 2nd Civil War.

Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

Save it for Alex Jones.....he survives off conspiracy theories....

An analysis is not a conspiracy therory, despite the spin from you LW loons.

So Alex Jones is an Analyst? You really want to stick with that assertion? You want me to post some links of his "analysis." you know.....how Sandy Hook never happened or that the Florida shooting was a hoax?

You....being a National Enquirer devotee probably agree with the bull of Alex Jones.

I am wondering why one of the parents of these slain children hasn't pushed an AK15 between Alex Jones lips. That would be something to see.

 

[boedicca]

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

Civilians will NEVER be as well armed as government. How many civilian friends have grenade launchers....sub machine guns or tanks? That argument is not valid. The only person I know that would be willing to abuse the power government has with it's weapons is trump. Remember...

"Tell me again why we can't use nuclear weapons?"

I suggest you read this...because the Feds attacking civilians would cause a 2nd Civil War.

Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

Save it for Alex Jones.....he survives off conspiracy theories....

An analysis is not a conspiracy therory, despite the spin from you LW loons.

So Alex Jones is an Analyst? You really want to stick with that assertion? You want me to post some links of his "analysis." you know.....how Sandy Hook never happened or that the Florida shooting was a hoax?

You....being a National Enquirer devotee probably agree with the bull of Alex Jones.

I am wondering why one of the parents of these slain children hasn't pushed an AK15 between Alex Jones lips. That would be something to see.

I didn't post anything from Alex Jones. Try keeping up.

 

[kaz]

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?

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 don't get the analogy with the nap, do you have a right to a nap in the Constitution?

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 meant to say that to Taz, not me. That's exactly what I'm arguing. It's Taz who's arguing children have the same rights as adults. You only look at sides and which one they're on, not what they are saying, don't you?

 

[kaz]

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?

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 don't get the analogy with the nap, do you have a right to a nap in the Constitution?

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.

"The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children"
Children's Rights

Neither of your links support your position.

You need to turn yourself into police for violating the Constitutional rights of your children by holding them captive against their will. You should write down every time you did that so they can charge you with each count

 

[kaz]

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 don't get the analogy with the nap, do you have a right to a nap in the Constitution?

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.

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.

You really are that stupid, aren't you? Ask your husband, I don't care what your answer is

 

[kaz]

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 don't get the analogy with the nap, do you have a right to a nap in the Constitution?

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.

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.

that's all true. and I agree.

but you don't even need to get there. the first, fourth, fifth amendments, etc., all have limits. the idea that the 2nd is immune from reasonable limitations is a silly and absurd assertion.

The trick is in how you define a reasonable limit. Leftists think a reasonable limit is whatever the hell government wants a limit to be. In fact you think the Bill of Rights is a list of powers of government.

See what I did there? Your interest perked up when I mentioned your getting a trick, didn't it?

 

[kaz]

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

Read and Learn.

The Dred Scott Decision [ushistory.org]

If you're going to say "This is correct, and infallible, and unchangeable because the Supreme Court said it", then your ignorant ass had better be prepared to defend EVERYTHING ever said by the Supreme Court in the same way.

Not to mention, what do you think of Gore v. Bush, Jimbo? You think the court is perfect? LOL

 

[kaz]

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....

That leftists equate sex with guns is yet another example of how pathetically sick you idiots are

Hey, if conservative women looked like leftist shrews, maybe you'd be confused on the subject, too.

There are plenty of leftists that are good for a Saturday night. Just not for when you pick the girl to spend the rest of your Saturday nights with

 

[kaz]

Is it Constitutional for you to detain an adult against their will in your house?

No. And?

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

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.

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

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?

Yes, you have a double standard. You cannot kidnap an adult. By the 14th amendment, that means you cannot kidnap a child. Which you did.

Notice how you claim your point is that you're just establishing there are limits on the bill of rights. Here's how your argument goes.

If you can establish any limit no matter how contrived, then you can limit the amendment in any way you want to limit it.

If children cannot buy guns, then you can ban guns and because the second amendment means nothing. It can be limited in one way, therefore it can be limited in any and all ways.

It's a bull shit argument

 

[kaz]

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

I never mentioned naps, you did. Strawman fail.

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

Children have rights under the Constitution, now you know.

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

Ok, so you agree that under certain circumstances, the 2nd Amendment can be limited. Gawd, that was hard.

Your sweeping airhead argument aside, I always said children cannot buy guns. How stupid are you?

Now let's get back to how you illegally kidnapped your children ...

 

[kaz]

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

So the 2nd Amendment is applied along religious lines? Didn't know that. And the 2nd Amendment has an age restriction? Where?

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?

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?

And how can school administrators force children to participate in Anti-Gun protests?

They ding their grades, don't write college recommendations for them, harass them in class. Just like they do now. You thought there was free speech for anyone but leftists in schools? Seriously?

 

[kaz]

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?

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 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.

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.

Her point is that if she can get you to concede anything, that children can't buy guns, that people can't by nukes, in her mind, that means there are no Constitutional limits on government's ability to regulate guns and they can ban them entirely.

Keep in mind I'm not defending her view, just answering what her point is

 

[kaz]

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 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.

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 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.

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

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.

So you treat every view you have with the same priority? Of course you don't you stupid bimbo

 

[kaz]

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

Civilians will NEVER be as well armed as government. How many civilian friends have grenade launchers....sub machine guns or tanks? That argument is not valid. The only person I know that would be willing to abuse the power government has with it's weapons is trump. Remember...

"Tell me again why we can't use nuclear weapons?"

Read my posts again. I've clearly answered this question several times, brainiac

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

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 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.

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.

Her point is that if she can get you to concede anything, that children can't buy guns, that people can't by nukes, in her mind, that means there are no Constitutional limits on government's ability to regulate guns and they can ban them entirely.

Keep in mind I'm not defending her view, just answering what her point is

Oh, I'm well aware of where it's going. I'm just pointing out that it needs to say so clearly, so that it can be mocked appropriately.