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.
The 2nd amendment does not cover weapons of mass destruction it covers personal arms carried and maintained by an individual. If you are arguing that since that was muskets when it was written and it should still only be muskets then you have no right to a computer typewriter or modern printing press. No phones, no TV no radio, etc etc.Do Righties here know how much time it took to load a musket with just one bullet?
Those were the weapons of the day that the Constitution guaranteed a civilian could have and bear.
So, why are Conservatives advocating that we stick with the old time muskets? Hmmmm?
Where is the right restricted only to weapons of that time? Point out the passage.
Now, you take a minute an think about that.
Had our founding fathers known that 200 years later, we would possess weapons of mass destruction, would they have worded the 2nd amendment the way they did?
Sure looks as if context is not your thing.
Your speculations are quite speculative.
Do you know how long it took to reload a musket in 1791?
Nothing could be more irrelevant to this issue.
False. It is VERY relevant.
Only, RWNJs like you do not have enough courage to answer the question, mostly because you are pussies who run away when confronted with hard facts.
A musket from circa 1791 takes about 40 seconds to 1 minute in time to load and fire with one single projectile:
Had our forefathers known that one day, people could have semi-automatic weapons that can fire 40 to 60 RPM (some fire up to 800 RPM), they would likely have worded the amendment differently.
The purpose of the 2nd was to ensure the people had access to and could own weapons of a personal nature belonging to a militia or army. That means semi automatic rifles that you retards call assault weapons because they LOOK scary but fire no faster then any semiautomatic hunting rifle.
As for claiming because a musket was what was current in the beginning and that is all the amendment deals with then the Government has the right to prevent modern printing presses, phones, tvs, radios, computers, etc etc.
Our Second Article of Amendment is only about one thing; and that Intent and that Purpose is in the first (sergeant) clause.
CommieShould be completely repealed. Pleanty of countries get on just fine and a lot better than us without 2nd amendments.
The 2nd amendment does not cover weapons of mass destruction it covers personal arms carried and maintained by an individual. If you are arguing that since that was muskets when it was written and it should still only be muskets then you have no right to a computer typewriter or modern printing press. No phones, no TV no radio, etc etc.Do Righties here know how much time it took to load a musket with just one bullet?
Those were the weapons of the day that the Constitution guaranteed a civilian could have and bear.
So, why are Conservatives advocating that we stick with the old time muskets? Hmmmm?
Where is the right restricted only to weapons of that time? Point out the passage.
Now, you take a minute an think about that.
Had our founding fathers known that 200 years later, we would possess weapons of mass destruction, would they have worded the 2nd amendment the way they did?
Sure looks as if context is not your thing.
Do you know how long it took to reload a musket in 1791?
Nothing could be more irrelevant to this issue.
False. It is VERY relevant.
Only, RWNJs like you do not have enough courage to answer the question, mostly because you are pussies who run away when confronted with hard facts.
A musket from circa 1791 takes about 40 seconds to 1 minute in time to load and fire with one single projectile:
Had our forefathers known that one day, people could have semi-automatic weapons that can fire 40 to 60 RPM (some fire up to 800 RPM), they would likely have worded the amendment differently.
The purpose of the 2nd was to ensure the people had access to and could own weapons of a personal nature belonging to a militia or army. That means semi automatic rifles that you retards call assault weapons because they LOOK scary but fire no faster then any semiautomatic hunting rifle.
As for claiming because a musket was what was current in the beginning and that is all the amendment deals with then the Government has the right to prevent modern printing presses, phones, tvs, radios, computers, etc etc.
Our Second Article of Amendment is only about one thing; and that Intent and that Purpose is in the first (sergeant) clause.
Actually retard we have had this conversation before. The militia part is NOT the controlling clause it is simply a descriptive clause that lists one of what could be many reasons for the main clause.
Further the Supreme Court has ruled that one does NOT need to belong to a militia in order to be covered by the second amendment which further destroys your ignorant opinion.
Yes it does.Amend it?
Sure.
Remove the line about 'well regulated militia', unnecessary since the creation of the National Guard.
and has nothing to do with the Right of the People to keep and bear arms
Yes it does.Amend it?
Sure.
Remove the line about 'well regulated militia', unnecessary since the creation of the National Guard.
and has nothing to do with the Right of the People to keep and bear arms
Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended ...
The 2nd amendment does not cover weapons of mass destruction it covers personal arms carried and maintained by an individual. If you are arguing that since that was muskets when it was written and it should still only be muskets then you have no right to a computer typewriter or modern printing press. No phones, no TV no radio, etc etc.Where is the right restricted only to weapons of that time? Point out the passage.
Now, you take a minute an think about that.
Had our founding fathers known that 200 years later, we would possess weapons of mass destruction, would they have worded the 2nd amendment the way they did?
Sure looks as if context is not your thing.
Nothing could be more irrelevant to this issue.
False. It is VERY relevant.
Only, RWNJs like you do not have enough courage to answer the question, mostly because you are pussies who run away when confronted with hard facts.
A musket from circa 1791 takes about 40 seconds to 1 minute in time to load and fire with one single projectile:
Had our forefathers known that one day, people could have semi-automatic weapons that can fire 40 to 60 RPM (some fire up to 800 RPM), they would likely have worded the amendment differently.
The purpose of the 2nd was to ensure the people had access to and could own weapons of a personal nature belonging to a militia or army. That means semi automatic rifles that you retards call assault weapons because they LOOK scary but fire no faster then any semiautomatic hunting rifle.
As for claiming because a musket was what was current in the beginning and that is all the amendment deals with then the Government has the right to prevent modern printing presses, phones, tvs, radios, computers, etc etc.
Our Second Article of Amendment is only about one thing; and that Intent and that Purpose is in the first (sergeant) clause.
Actually retard we have had this conversation before. The militia part is NOT the controlling clause it is simply a descriptive clause that lists one of what could be many reasons for the main clause.
Further the Supreme Court has ruled that one does NOT need to belong to a militia in order to be covered by the second amendment which further destroys your ignorant opinion.
sorry gunny, the first (sergeant) clause, outranks you.
The 2nd amendment does not cover weapons of mass destruction it covers personal arms carried and maintained by an individual. If you are arguing that since that was muskets when it was written and it should still only be muskets then you have no right to a computer typewriter or modern printing press. No phones, no TV no radio, etc etc.Now, you take a minute an think about that.
Had our founding fathers known that 200 years later, we would possess weapons of mass destruction, would they have worded the 2nd amendment the way they did?
Sure looks as if context is not your thing.
False. It is VERY relevant.
Only, RWNJs like you do not have enough courage to answer the question, mostly because you are pussies who run away when confronted with hard facts.
A musket from circa 1791 takes about 40 seconds to 1 minute in time to load and fire with one single projectile:
Had our forefathers known that one day, people could have semi-automatic weapons that can fire 40 to 60 RPM (some fire up to 800 RPM), they would likely have worded the amendment differently.
The purpose of the 2nd was to ensure the people had access to and could own weapons of a personal nature belonging to a militia or army. That means semi automatic rifles that you retards call assault weapons because they LOOK scary but fire no faster then any semiautomatic hunting rifle.
As for claiming because a musket was what was current in the beginning and that is all the amendment deals with then the Government has the right to prevent modern printing presses, phones, tvs, radios, computers, etc etc.
Our Second Article of Amendment is only about one thing; and that Intent and that Purpose is in the first (sergeant) clause.
Actually retard we have had this conversation before. The militia part is NOT the controlling clause it is simply a descriptive clause that lists one of what could be many reasons for the main clause.
Further the Supreme Court has ruled that one does NOT need to belong to a militia in order to be covered by the second amendment which further destroys your ignorant opinion.
sorry gunny, the first (sergeant) clause, outranks you.
You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.
So is the 1st.2nd amendment is so obsolete.
What is Burger King got to do with the loophole at gun show? Give me another example before I ignore your post.
No, that's relevant. You object to the transaction being held at a gun show but apparently the same transaction in the parking lot at Burger King would not be an issue for you. A transaction between two private citizen is not illegal and can be held anywhere. So, it's not a "loophole" that occurs only at gun shows. All you've done in this thread is prove you really don't know what you're talking about in relation to this subject.
Now, ignore me if you must. I know you will find comfort in not having to face the truth.
Truth is there is a loophole that you deny the existence. I proved this myself. That's the point. Private dealer sell his guns at gun show is called what? Peephole?
... or the main lobby of FBI HQ.No, there's no loophole. What you say was a "loophole" was merely a private transaction that would have operated the same way in the parking lot of the police department...
Here's a challenge you will never meet:Truth is there is a loophole that you deny the existence.
-Define said loophole.
-Explain how it exists only at gun shows.
-Explain how it legally allows you to avoid the federal laws requiring background checks.
Nope... The truth is you deny the existence of a loophole at gun show. And you can defend however you want. It exist. Period.
2nd amendment is so obsolete... That's strange we still stick to those two century old definitions of democracy.
"No! No! There MUST be a gun show loophole, as both Hillary and Bernie said they would close it!"Making a pronouncement doesn't mean your ignorance isn't on display for all to see.Nope... The truth is you deny the existence of a loophole at gun show. And you can defend however you want. It exist. Period.Here's a challenge you will never meet:Truth is there is a loophole that you deny the existence.
-Define said loophole.
-Explain how it exists only at gun shows.
-Explain how it legally allows you to avoid the federal laws requiring background checks.
Guns are extremely safe in the right hands. Put a retard behind the wheel of a "safe" automobile and it becomes a deadly weapon capable of mass-destruction.Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended to promote gun control?
Moderation Note:
Quote Removed because it's from another Message Board. Check the rules.
Automobiles may kill more humans than guns kill in the U.S.
But we already regulate them. To operate them on public roadways:
- the driver must be licensed
- the vehicle must meet legal standards
- obeying motor-vehicle & traffic laws is required
- cars are being built safer and "better" all the time. Most of a century ago, there were cars on the road with 2 wheel brakes. Today there are cars on our public roadways with:
4 wheel power disc brakes
anti-lock brakes
air bags (front & side)
crumple-zone crash-energy absorption design
collapsible steering column
and much, much more.
So since their proliferation, cars have gotten safer, and better.
In vivid contrast, since the U.S. Founding, guns have gotten vastly more lethal.
Should the United States Constitution's Second Amendment which acknowledges the People's "right to keep and bear arms" be amended to compensate for this divergent technological trend? Safer cars, and ever more deadly guns?
Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended to promote gun control?
Moderation Note:
Quote Removed because it's from another Message Board. Check the rules.
Automobiles may kill more humans than guns kill in the U.S.
But we already regulate them. To operate them on public roadways:
- the driver must be licensed
- the vehicle must meet legal standards
- obeying motor-vehicle & traffic laws is required
- cars are being built safer and "better" all the time. Most of a century ago, there were cars on the road with 2 wheel brakes. Today there are cars on our public roadways with:
4 wheel power disc brakes
anti-lock brakes
air bags (front & side)
crumple-zone crash-energy absorption design
collapsible steering column
and much, much more.
So since their proliferation, cars have gotten safer, and better.
In vivid contrast, since the U.S. Founding, guns have gotten vastly more lethal.
CLERSE TEH LERP-HERRRRRL!"No! No! There MUST be a gun show loophole, as both Hillary and Bernie said they would close it!"Making a pronouncement doesn't mean your ignorance isn't on display for all to see.Nope... The truth is you deny the existence of a loophole at gun show. And you can defend however you want. It exist. Period.Here's a challenge you will never meet:Truth is there is a loophole that you deny the existence.
-Define said loophole.
-Explain how it exists only at gun shows.
-Explain how it legally allows you to avoid the federal laws requiring background checks.
-- Unthinking sheep
RUHPERRRL TEH SEKND UHMEMEMEHHHHH!To answer the OP, hell yes...
To answer the OP, hell yes...
