Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[M14 Shooter]

In the real world, rights have limitations and can be expensive.

In he real world, the 2nd does not protect the right to own a nuclear weapons.

 

[P@triot]

The site of a 6 year old having to listen to one of these crackheads is disconcerting. I’m sure they’ll grow up great!!!

In other words, Corny is really upset that they won't grow up being brainwashed to be liberal. It's hilarious to se how much that bothers libs. Go into any thread about home schooling and you'll see their heads exploding as they talk about how those homeschooled children can't be infected with the cancer known as liberalism.

 

[candycorn]

We've a couple of Einsteins posting here this morning I see.

Thanks Slingblade….

 

[Jack4jill]

If you don’t own a car, you don’t have to carry liability insurance. If you do, you have to have it. Sorry.

Driving or owning a car is not a constitutional right. Apples and oranges. Now, shall we discuss "voter ID?"

Where does the right to vote say you need ID?

The same place it says you need an ID to buy a gun.

Yeah, that's not in there in either, and neither is what are "arms".

Neither are background checks, waiting periods, registration or licensing.
In fact, neither is making it illegal for criminals to buy/own/possess guns.

Now we are getting somewhere. Those things might be "constitutional" but they are not in the Constitution itself. It says things like right to bear arms, and the courts are stuck figuring out just what that actually means?

 

[candycorn]

The site of a 6 year old having to listen to one of these crackheads is disconcerting. I’m sure they’ll grow up great!!!

In other words, Corny is really upset that they won't grow up being brainwashed to be liberal. It's hilarious to se how much that bothers libs. Go into any thread about home schooling and you'll see their heads exploding as they talk about how those homeschooled children can't be infected with the cancer known as liberalism.

Still think Wal Mart should be able to sell landmines? Yes or no.

 

[P@triot]

In the real world, rights have limitations and can be expensive.

In he real world, the 2nd does not protect the right to own a nuclear weapons.

It actually does. Really. But it's just not a concern. No one will ever have nuclear weapons, and if they found some bizarre way to get one, it wouldn't be a concern anyway.

 

[candycorn]

In the real world, rights have limitations and can be expensive.

In he real world, the 2nd does not protect the right to own a nuclear weapons.

It actually does. Really. But it's just not a concern. No one will ever have nuclear weapons, and if they found some bizarre way to get one, it wouldn't be a concern anyway.

unless they are muslim…right? Would you feel good with a muslim next door to you holding a detonator to a nuke? Either say no or tell us another lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Driving or owning a car is not a constitutional right. Apples and oranges. Now, shall we discuss "voter ID?"

Where does the right to vote say you need ID?

The same place it says you need an ID to buy a gun.

Yeah, that's not in there in either, and neither is what are "arms".

Neither are background checks, waiting periods, registration or licensing.
In fact, neither is making it illegal for criminals to buy/own/possess guns.

Now we are getting somewhere. Those things might be "constitutional" but they are not in the Constitution itself. It says things like right to bear arms, and the courts are stuck figuring out just what that actually means?

You need to make up your mind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The site of a 6 year old having to listen to one of these crackheads is disconcerting. I’m sure they’ll grow up great!!!

In other words, Corny is really upset that they won't grow up being brainwashed to be liberal. It's hilarious to se how much that bothers libs. Go into any thread about home schooling and you'll see their heads exploding as they talk about how those homeschooled children can't be infected with the cancer known as liberalism.

Still think Wal Mart should be able to sell landmines? Yes or no.

^^^
Mindless nonsense,...or... what passes for reasoned argument in the mind of an anti-gun loon.

 

[Jack4jill]

In the real world, rights have limitations and can be expensive.

In he real world, the 2nd does not protect the right to own a nuclear weapons.

Also correct, but that's not what the Constitution says, it's what the courts and society says.

Do not impose what is not there. Puddles is correct, it says Arms, he's just not living in the real world.

 

[ChrisL]

Driving or owning a car is not a constitutional right. Apples and oranges. Now, shall we discuss "voter ID?"

Where does the right to vote say you need ID?

The same place it says you need an ID to buy a gun.

Yeah, that's not in there in either, and neither is what are "arms".

Neither are background checks, waiting periods, registration or licensing.
In fact, neither is making it illegal for criminals to buy/own/possess guns.

Now we are getting somewhere. Those things might be "constitutional" but they are not in the Constitution itself. It says things like right to bear arms, and the courts are stuck figuring out just what that actually means?

The Supreme Court has already addressed this. You really sound stupid here, sorry to say.

 

[Jack4jill]

Where does the right to vote say you need ID?

The same place it says you need an ID to buy a gun.

Yeah, that's not in there in either, and neither is what are "arms".

Neither are background checks, waiting periods, registration or licensing.
In fact, neither is making it illegal for criminals to buy/own/possess guns.

Now we are getting somewhere. Those things might be "constitutional" but they are not in the Constitution itself. It says things like right to bear arms, and the courts are stuck figuring out just what that actually means?

You need to make up your mind.

My mind is made up. What the Constitution says, and what the courts who have to define what it actually means, are two different things,

Do not confuse the two.

The Constitution says Arms, and the courts say yeah, but not Nuclear Arms. Apples and oranges, two different but related things.

 

[ChrisL]

• 
  
• 1996-2016 The Washington Post
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Submissions and Discussion Policy
• RSS Terms of Service
• Ad Choices

washingtonpost.com > Nation > National News Special Reports > Supreme Court
» FOLLOW THE POST ON:


» THIS STORY:READ +
Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms

GALLERY



Patriot's Day gun rights rallies in Virginia and D.C.
Organized by the group "Restore the Constitution," self-proclaimed patriots rallied in D.C. and Viriginia for Second Amendment rights. At the Virginia rally in Fort Hunt in Alexandria, many demonstrators carried guns intending to make history as the first people to rally with firearms in a national park.
» LAUNCH PHOTO GALLERY

TOOLBOX
Print

E-mail
Reprints


By Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 29, 2010


The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates.

 

[Jack4jill]

Where does the right to vote say you need ID?

The same place it says you need an ID to buy a gun.

Yeah, that's not in there in either, and neither is what are "arms".

Neither are background checks, waiting periods, registration or licensing.
In fact, neither is making it illegal for criminals to buy/own/possess guns.

Now we are getting somewhere. Those things might be "constitutional" but they are not in the Constitution itself. It says things like right to bear arms, and the courts are stuck figuring out just what that actually means?

The Supreme Court has already addressed this. You really sound stupid here, sorry to say.

Stupid are those who can't understand that what the Constitution says, and what that actually means in the real world, are two different things. For pages and pages that has been the issue we are just now starting to get you idiots to understand.

Do not assume. Do not impose reasoning that is not there. The Constitution does not say firearms it says, Arms.

 

[P@triot]

The site of a 6 year old having to listen to one of these crackheads is disconcerting. I’m sure they’ll grow up great!!!

In other words, Corny is really upset that they won't grow up being brainwashed to be liberal. It's hilarious to se how much that bothers libs. Go into any thread about home schooling and you'll see their heads exploding as they talk about how those homeschooled children can't be infected with the cancer known as liberalism.

Still think Wal Mart should be able to sell landmines? Yes or no.

Man....I've been very clear on this. But I will do it one more time for you:

Yes. Whatever the U.S. government has, I should have. They are not above me. In fact, they are below me. They answer to the people. The people does not answer to them. In what world did you grow up in where the subordinate had more resources and power than the superior? Is there anything about that which you don't understand? How much clearer can I make it for you?

Now, that being said, I think it's important to add one more thing. Under Bill Clinton, the U.S. government started looking at eliminating APW's (anti-personnel weapons). In 2014, Obama released a memo that the U.S. would no longer manufacture and deploy APM (anti-personnel mines). Their thinking was rational. That innocent children and civilians not engaged in any form of conflict against the U.S. could step on them and die. If the U.S. military doesn't have the weapon in their arsenal, I could see some discussions around eliminating it from the citizens arsenal. I didn't say ban it. I didn't say regulate. I said discussions. As in, make the case to the people why we should voluntarily give them up (much the way society has handled cigarettes).

You irrational liberals simply do not understand how to address this issue. You fail to recognize that criminals don't follow the law, so making laws does nothing to stop them. Murder is already illegal and punishable by death. If that doesn't stop psycho's from picking up a gun and killing someone, how will outlawing guns stop them?!?

 

[Jack4jill]

• 
  
• 1996-2016 The Washington Post
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Submissions and Discussion Policy
• RSS Terms of Service
• Ad Choices

washingtonpost.com > Nation > National News Special Reports > Supreme Court
» FOLLOW THE POST ON:


» THIS STORY:READ +
Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms

GALLERY



Patriot's Day gun rights rallies in Virginia and D.C.
Organized by the group "Restore the Constitution," self-proclaimed patriots rallied in D.C. and Viriginia for Second Amendment rights. At the Virginia rally in Fort Hunt in Alexandria, many demonstrators carried guns intending to make history as the first people to rally with firearms in a national park.
» LAUNCH PHOTO GALLERY

TOOLBOX
Print

E-mail
Reprints


By Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 29, 2010


The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates.

Great, they affirmed the right to bear arms includes guns, a form of arms. They did not affirm that when the Constitution says Arms, it means, Guns. Guns are included, as they should be in this case.

Why not cannons, tanks, artillery, hand granades, biological weapons, and nuclear arms? That is something the courts have to work out.

 

[P@triot]

Now we are getting somewhere. Those things might be "constitutional" but they are not in the Constitution itself. It says things like right to bear arms, and the courts are stuck figuring out just what that actually means?

It means the right to keep and bear arms. That is black and white, crystal clear, and easy to understand. My God man, it's a total of seven words. If you need a court to figure out for you what 7 words in plain English mean, you have a LOT bigger problems in life than the 2nd Amendment.

 

[ChrisL]

The same place it says you need an ID to buy a gun.

Yeah, that's not in there in either, and neither is what are "arms".

Neither are background checks, waiting periods, registration or licensing.
In fact, neither is making it illegal for criminals to buy/own/possess guns.

Now we are getting somewhere. Those things might be "constitutional" but they are not in the Constitution itself. It says things like right to bear arms, and the courts are stuck figuring out just what that actually means?

The Supreme Court has already addressed this. You really sound stupid here, sorry to say.

Stupid are those who can't understand that what the Constitution says, and what that actually means in the real world, are two different things. For pages and pages that has been the issue we are just now starting to get you idiots to understand.

Do not assume. Do not impose reasoning that is not there. The Constitution does not say firearms it says, Arms.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. Lol. You don't really seem to know what is going on.

 

[Jack4jill]

Yeah, that's not in there in either, and neither is what are "arms".

Neither are background checks, waiting periods, registration or licensing.
In fact, neither is making it illegal for criminals to buy/own/possess guns.

Now we are getting somewhere. Those things might be "constitutional" but they are not in the Constitution itself. It says things like right to bear arms, and the courts are stuck figuring out just what that actually means?

The Supreme Court has already addressed this. You really sound stupid here, sorry to say.

Stupid are those who can't understand that what the Constitution says, and what that actually means in the real world, are two different things. For pages and pages that has been the issue we are just now starting to get you idiots to understand.

Do not assume. Do not impose reasoning that is not there. The Constitution does not say firearms it says, Arms.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. Lol. You don't really seem to know what is going on.

What's going on is the Constitution says one thing and the courts say another? When Puddles says it says bear arms, not bear firearms, he's correct.

Higher level thinking you seem incapable of, like legal reasoning, so just drop it. You have to think like a lawyer and you cannot.

People, there is the Constitution, and there is what is Constitutional. They are two different things. Do not confuse the two.

 

[ChrisL]

Neither are background checks, waiting periods, registration or licensing.
In fact, neither is making it illegal for criminals to buy/own/possess guns.

Now we are getting somewhere. Those things might be "constitutional" but they are not in the Constitution itself. It says things like right to bear arms, and the courts are stuck figuring out just what that actually means?

The Supreme Court has already addressed this. You really sound stupid here, sorry to say.

Stupid are those who can't understand that what the Constitution says, and what that actually means in the real world, are two different things. For pages and pages that has been the issue we are just now starting to get you idiots to understand.

Do not assume. Do not impose reasoning that is not there. The Constitution does not say firearms it says, Arms.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. Lol. You don't really seem to know what is going on.

What's going on is the Constitution says one thing and the courts say another? When Puddles says it says bear arms, not bear firearms, he's correct.

Higher level thinking you seem incapable of, like legal reasoning, so just drop it. You have to think like a lawyer and you cannot.

People, there is the Constitution, and there is what is Constitutional. They are two different things. Do not confuse the two.

Lol! Why did the Supreme Court determine that the Chicago handgun ban was unconstitutional?