Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[Jack4jill]

It says, Bear Arms, not guns. Now what?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same.

It does not say Firearm. It says, Bear Arms. Lots of arms around, right?

At least one here thinks you can own personal nukes. Anything the government has you should be able to have. That's his position.

Anyone with a 2nd Grade education and the ability to read knows that strategic assets are reserved to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Where does it say you can't make or own a nuclear arm?

Why do you continue to lie about this?

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms. While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords? No, because swords are arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I feel nice and safe; I never need to look under our bed before going to sleep,

Well... if YOU feel safe, then everyone must also be safe.
That being the case, why do we need all the mindless and unnecessary gun control laws you seek?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same.

It does not say Firearm. It says, Bear Arms. Lots of arms around, right?

At least one here thinks you can own personal nukes. Anything the government has you should be able to have. That's his position.

Anyone with a 2nd Grade education and the ability to read knows that strategic assets are reserved to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Where does it say you can't make or own a nuclear arm?

Why do you continue to lie about this?

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms. While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords? No, because swords are arms.

You're one stupid son of a bitch

 

[M14 Shooter]

Australia has tough gun laws.
They have very few gun deaths.
We have tons of guns.
We have tons of gun deaths.
Coincidence? No.

I see that among all your other intellectual shortcomings, you do not recognize that correlation does not equal causation.
Not really surprised - I just don't recall you presenting this particular logical fallacy.

 

[P@triot]

In Corny's world....she would like to see this police officer brutally beaten to death. Thankfully our founders and conservatives are exponentially more rational than she is and this citizen's ability to be armed saved the life of this police officer.

Officer Is Attacked and Then Surrounded by ’40 or 50′ Teenagers. But Just When It Looks Like the Cop Is ‘Dead Meat,’ a Gun Owner Opens His Front Door.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same.

It does not say Firearm. It says, Bear Arms. Lots of arms around, right?

At least one here thinks you can own personal nukes. Anything the government has you should be able to have. That's his position.

Anyone with a 2nd Grade education and the ability to read knows that strategic assets are reserved to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Where does it say you can't make or own a nuclear arm?

Why do you continue to lie about this?

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms.

You stated previously that you fully understand the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Thus, to present anything else is to lie.

Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same

 

[P@triot]

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms. While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords? No, because swords are arms.

That "understanding" never happened. Not then. Not later. Not now. It's only in the minds of libtards does that false narrative exist. The fact is, we have a right to keep and bear arms. That is not restricted to guns. Period. The Constitution guarantees us that whatever the government (the institution that answers the people) has in its arsenal, the people can have in theirs.

I've already obliterated you in your nonsensical "can you nave nuclear weapons" argument. I'd love to do so again if you'd like.

 

[Jack4jill]

It does not say Firearm. It says, Bear Arms. Lots of arms around, right?

At least one here thinks you can own personal nukes. Anything the government has you should be able to have. That's his position.

Anyone with a 2nd Grade education and the ability to read knows that strategic assets are reserved to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Where does it say you can't make or own a nuclear arm?

Why do you continue to lie about this?

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms.

You stated previously that you fully understand the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Thus, to present anything else is to lie.

Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same

It protects the right to Bear Arms, period. What that actually means came later.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Anyone with a 2nd Grade education and the ability to read knows that strategic assets are reserved to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Where does it say you can't make or own a nuclear arm?

Why do you continue to lie about this?

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms.

You stated previously that you fully understand the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Thus, to present anything else is to lie.

Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same

It protects the right to Bear Arms, period. What that actually means came later.
View attachment 74483

You're really going to try and float this nonsense? Really?

 

[The VOR]

It does not say Firearm. It says, Bear Arms. Lots of arms around, right?

At least one here thinks you can own personal nukes. Anything the government has you should be able to have. That's his position.

Anyone with a 2nd Grade education and the ability to read knows that strategic assets are reserved to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Where does it say you can't make or own a nuclear arm?

Why do you continue to lie about this?

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms. While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords? No, because swords are arms.

You're one stupid son of a bitch

Isn't it against board policy to talk about a poster's family member? You calling his Mother a bitch is also very unchristian like I might add.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Anyone with a 2nd Grade education and the ability to read knows that strategic assets are reserved to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Where does it say you can't make or own a nuclear arm?

Why do you continue to lie about this?

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms. While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords? No, because swords are arms.

You're one stupid son of a bitch

Isn't it against board policy to talk about a poster's family member? You calling his Mother a bitch is also very unchristian like I might add.

Good grief...go away ya old troll

 

[P@triot]

It protects the right to Bear Arms, period. What that actually means came later.

This is just a special kind of stupid. It means exactly what is says. There was nothing that needed to "come later" with regards to its meaning. Why the fuck would the founders create a legal document with the intent of it having no meaning, and that somewhere in the future, people who were not in the room that day were supposed to "determine" what it "meant"?!?!

It's a legal document you buffoon. The founders could have written "muskets" but they didn't. They could have written "guns", but they didn't. Aside from writing "arms" in the U.S. Constitution, there are volumes upon volumes of original writings from the founders - all of whom clearly indicate that the right was reserved to the people (all people) and that it was for any and all arms that the government had as well.

 

[candycorn]

[QUOTE="2aguy, post: 14227518, member: 50072”]
Each year there are 1,500,000 million innocent Americans who use guns to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...
[/QUOTE]

Oh, that lie again.

I'll put it this way.

When you turned on the Super Bowl this year, you saw about 80,000 people in the stadium. Take that stadium and imagine 12 other stadiums that are filled too; same size. That will be 960,000 people.

Now take those 13 stadiums and DOUBLE IT.


When you do that; you STILL WOULD NOT imagine enough people to fulfill the claim of 2aguy that over 2,000,000 people stopped violent crime last year (and every year before that in recent memory) using guns.

Here is yet another way to put it:

Giant's Stadium: holds about 80,000 folks. Here is a visual of how many people I referenced above....(sort of)

Forum rules will only allow me to publish 15 pictures....80,000 x 15 is 1.2 million folks. Still 800,000 short of the AVERAGE number @2aguysays used guns to stop a violent crime last year alone

This doesn't account for all of the previous years.

Nor does it account for the inherent lie that if the crime was prevented; how does one know if it were going to be a violent crime???

Anyway, it would take 25 Giants Stadiums to seat everyone who used a gun last year to stop a crime according to that moron. Didn't happen. Didn't happen in any of our lifetimes.

 

[Jack4jill]

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms. While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords? No, because swords are arms.

That "understanding" never happened. Not then. Not later. Not now. It's only in the minds of libtards does that false narrative exist. The fact is, we have a right to keep and bear arms. That is not restricted to guns. Period. The Constitution guarantees us that whatever the government (the institution that answers the people) has in its arsenal, the people can have in theirs.

I've already obliterated you in your nonsensical "can you nave nuclear weapons" argument. I'd love to do so again if you'd like.

Your fight is with M14 and Ret. They think the Constitution says Firearms, and it does not, it says Arms.

 

[The VOR]

Where does it say you can't make or own a nuclear arm?

Why do you continue to lie about this?

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms. While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords? No, because swords are arms.

You're one stupid son of a bitch

Isn't it against board policy to talk about a poster's family member? You calling his Mother a bitch is also very unchristian like I might add.

Good grief...go away ya old troll

Hey! Wait a minute! I thought you said you have me on ignore? LOL.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms. While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords? No, because swords are arms.

That "understanding" never happened. Not then. Not later. Not now. It's only in the minds of libtards does that false narrative exist. The fact is, we have a right to keep and bear arms. That is not restricted to guns. Period. The Constitution guarantees us that whatever the government (the institution that answers the people) has in its arsenal, the people can have in theirs.

I've already obliterated you in your nonsensical "can you nave nuclear weapons" argument. I'd love to do so again if you'd like.

Your fight is with M14 and Ret. They think the Constitution says Firearms, and it does not, it says Arms.

Firearms would be included in the "arms", fool

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
4. The Preamble is a vision statement, one which promises much more than liberty, to wit:

You know, however ,. that the preamble does not confer any power whatsoever to the federal government.

 

[candycorn]

Australia has tough gun laws.
They have very few gun deaths.

We have tons of guns.
We have tons of gun deaths.

Coincidence? No.

Australia had few gun deaths before they confiscated their guns....and their criminals still have guns after the confiscation...they gained nothing from confiscating guns.

Australia is seeing an increase in gun crime........with confiscation and extreme gun control...

We have increased our gun ownership by 10s of millions and our gun murder rate has gone down.....

And in about 3,000 (sarcasm) years, they may have enough gun deaths to be just like us. I bet they can’t wait.

 

[Jack4jill]

Where does it say you can't make or own a nuclear arm?

Why do you continue to lie about this?

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms.

You stated previously that you fully understand the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Thus, to present anything else is to lie.

Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same

It protects the right to Bear Arms, period. What that actually means came later.
View attachment 74483

You're really going to try and float this nonsense? Really?

So you really believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your right to bear a sword when it protects your right to own a gun? It says, Arms, not Firearms. Stop imposing an understanding which isn't there.

To figure out what Arms actually means, you have to go to court but good luck finding a court that says you have a right to a gun but not a sword?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone with a 2nd Grade education and the ability to read knows that strategic assets are reserved to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Where does it say you can't make or own a nuclear arm?

Why do you continue to lie about this?

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms.

You stated previously that you fully understand the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Thus, to present anything else is to lie.
Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same

It protects the right to Bear Arms, period. What that actually means came later.

Yes... and when did the legal definition of 'arms', in the context of the 2nd, come about?