Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[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.

You've just got to laugh at this one! Hilarious.

 

[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.

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?!?

Oh, you’ve been clear. I just like making you look like a complete nut job as opposed to the standard issue nut job you always appear to be.

2 follow ups.

Why limit yourself to ONLY the stuff the US Government has? I mean, the Constitution doesn’t place that limit on you so stuff the US says it doesn’t have in it’s inventory should be fair play then…right? Sarin gas, hedgehog ASW, the old VC “flying telephone pole” anti-aircraft defense weapons. You should be able to get them right?

Secondly, in your M1A1, you should be able to drive it anywhere as long as you don’t violate safety laws, right?

 

[candycorn]

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.

It’s a total of 3 words you can’t comprehend: A “well-regulated militia”.

You trotted out Switzerland as an example of your utopia. It’s a well-regulated militia that they have. And low and behold, guys who think they should be able to buy land-mines are probably kept in padded rooms somewhere and closely monitored. Idiots like you would never see a gun in Switzerland.

 

[Jack4jill]

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?

Because the Constitution does not say that cites can ban your right to bear arms when the Constitution says you have a right to bear arms, of course.

The Constitution also does not say what an arm is? And it also doesn't say when, or even if, you can lose that right. All of that was decided by the courts, not the people who wrote the Constitution.

What's in the Constitution, and what is Constitutional are two very different things. How many times must I repeat this point?

Bear Arms, not Bear Firearms. Nuclear weapons, swords, knives, cannons, tanks, etc. are ARMS.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Because the Constitution does not say that cites can ban your right to bear arms when the Constitution says you have a right to bear arms, of course.

The Constitution also does not say what an arm is? And it also doesn't say when, or even if, you can lose that right. All of that was decided by the courts, not the people who wrote the Constitution.

What's in the Constitution, and what is Constitutional are two very different things. How many times must I repeat this point?

Bear Arms, not Bear Firearms. Nuclear weapons, swords, knives, cannons, tanks, etc. are ARMS.

Please tell me you are not as big an idiot as you sound? Lol. READ the Constitution and the relative passages regarding our rights to bear arms, please. Then, hopefully, you will be educated enough to participate in "constitutional" discussions and cease with the complete ridiculousness. TIA.

 

[Jack4jill]

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.

You've just got to laugh at this one! Hilarious.

Stop laughing and start dealing with the fact that what the Constitution says doesn't mean that's real life? Puddles can't get that, and you are too dumb too,

 

[ChrisL]

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.

You've just got to laugh at this one! Hilarious.

Stop laughing and start dealing with the fact that what the Constitution says doesn't mean that's real life? Puddles can't get that, and you are too dumb too,

We are all laughing at you. You are clueless when it comes to our rights. Lol. Totally clueless, and an angry old lady to boot.

 

[Jack4jill]

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?

Because the Constitution does not say that cites can ban your right to bear arms when the Constitution says you have a right to bear arms, of course.

The Constitution also does not say what an arm is? And it also doesn't say when, or even if, you can lose that right. All of that was decided by the courts, not the people who wrote the Constitution.

What's in the Constitution, and what is Constitutional are two very different things. How many times must I repeat this point?

Bear Arms, not Bear Firearms. Nuclear weapons, swords, knives, cannons, tanks, etc. are ARMS.

Please tell me you are not as big an idiot as you sound? Lol. READ the Constitution and the relative passages regarding our rights to bear arms, please. Then, hopefully, you will be educated enough to participate in "constitutional" discussions and cease with the complete ridiculousness. TIA.

I've read it. In no place does it say firearms, or what a arm is, or that you can ever lose the right to bear arms, or that said right can be limited by the government.

You are a very stupid person and I can't help you. You have no understanding of the fact that what the Constitution actually means when it says Bear Arms is decided upon by the courts. Nothing in the Constitution says you can lose the right to bear arms or that you can't have whatever "arms" you like. That all came about much later, from the courts, not the Constitution.

The implication? Guns, like nukes, could also be banned. Banning one arm is no different than banning another, if the courts say such a ban is Constitutional and they are allowed, by law and tradition, to do so.

While you might be top poster of the month, you are not top thinker of the month. Post less, think more.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

It’s a total of 3 words you can’t comprehend: A “well-regulated militia”.

You trotted out Switzerland as an example of your utopia. It’s a well-regulated militia that they have. And low and behold, guys who think they should be able to buy land-mines are probably kept in padded rooms somewhere and closely monitored. Idiots like you would never see a gun in Switzerland.

Well, I guess you'll have to take that up with the courts. They have determined that the right to bear arms applies to individuals. Have you ever read the federalist papers?

 

[Jack4jill]

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.

You've just got to laugh at this one! Hilarious.

Stop laughing and start dealing with the fact that what the Constitution says doesn't mean that's real life? Puddles can't get that, and you are too dumb too,

We are all laughing at you. You are clueless when it comes to our rights. Lol. Totally clueless, and an angry old lady to boot.

1. Where do your rights come from?
2. Who decides what those rights mean and do not mean?
3. Who decides when you can lose a right?

If it says that Congress can make no law against free speech, for example, why is some speech not protected by the Constitution? It says No Law, not Some Law. Explain that to us, if you can.

 

[Jack4jill]

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.

It’s a total of 3 words you can’t comprehend: A “well-regulated militia”.

You trotted out Switzerland as an example of your utopia. It’s a well-regulated militia that they have. And low and behold, guys who think they should be able to buy land-mines are probably kept in padded rooms somewhere and closely monitored. Idiots like you would never see a gun in Switzerland.

Well, I guess you'll have to take that up with the courts. They have determined that the right to bear arms applies to individuals. Have you ever read the federalist papers?

The Federalist Papers don't change the fact that the court could rule either way. What it says is Constitutional is, regardless of what the actual Constitution says.

How long before you get this?

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Because the Constitution does not say that cites can ban your right to bear arms when the Constitution says you have a right to bear arms, of course.

The Constitution also does not say what an arm is? And it also doesn't say when, or even if, you can lose that right. All of that was decided by the courts, not the people who wrote the Constitution.

What's in the Constitution, and what is Constitutional are two very different things. How many times must I repeat this point?

Bear Arms, not Bear Firearms. Nuclear weapons, swords, knives, cannons, tanks, etc. are ARMS.

Please tell me you are not as big an idiot as you sound? Lol. READ the Constitution and the relative passages regarding our rights to bear arms, please. Then, hopefully, you will be educated enough to participate in "constitutional" discussions and cease with the complete ridiculousness. TIA.

I've read it. In no place does it say firearms, or what a arm is, or that you can ever lose the right to bear arms, or that said right can be limited by the government.

You are a very stupid person and I can't help you. You have no understanding of the fact that what the Constitution actually means when it says Bear Arms is decided upon by the courts. Nothing in the Constitution says you can lose the right to bear arms or that you can't have whatever "arms" you like. That all came about much later, from the courts, not the Constitution.

The implication? Guns, like nukes, could also be banned. Banning one arm is no different than banning another, if the courts say such a ban is Constitutional and they are allowed, by law and tradition, to do so.

While you might be top poster of the month, you are not top thinker of the month. Post less, think more.

Like I said, you are clueless. Lol.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6]while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[15]

 

[P@triot]

Lets go down the rabbit hole…should you be able to carry around a LAW with you the same way these boobs are carrying guns into Target?

It's so bizarre how you consider yourself the ultimate arbiter of all things. What makes these people "boobs"? You don't know them. Because they are carrying firearms (each one I notice has the muzzle safely pointed toward the floor and none of them have their fingers on the trigger). Just because you have fear of an inanimate object?

Anyone could walk up behind one of these idiots and grab the trigger. That it was pointed down will mean little to the person hit by the ricochet or having their hearing damaged.

If you’re asking such a dumb question, I guess that makes you a racist boob.

Says the person who has never even held a firearm.

My dear...how do you even know those firearms are loaded? If they are, how do you know there is a round in the chamber? If there is, how do you know that the safety is off? Any one of those scenarios and pulling the trigger means nothing. By the way - a round from a rifle is not going to "ricochet" off of porcelain tile. It will punch through that lie a good knife does through soft, melted butter.

Please don't try to present yourself as some type of gun expert. It makes you look silly.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

It’s a total of 3 words you can’t comprehend: A “well-regulated militia”.

You trotted out Switzerland as an example of your utopia. It’s a well-regulated militia that they have. And low and behold, guys who think they should be able to buy land-mines are probably kept in padded rooms somewhere and closely monitored. Idiots like you would never see a gun in Switzerland.

Well, I guess you'll have to take that up with the courts. They have determined that the right to bear arms applies to individuals. Have you ever read the federalist papers?

The Federalist Papers don't change the fact that the court could rule either way. What it says is Constitutional is, regardless of what the actual Constitution says.

How long before you get this?

I think the Federalist Papers would help you two Einsteins figure things out.

 

[Jack4jill]

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?

Because the Constitution does not say that cites can ban your right to bear arms when the Constitution says you have a right to bear arms, of course.

The Constitution also does not say what an arm is? And it also doesn't say when, or even if, you can lose that right. All of that was decided by the courts, not the people who wrote the Constitution.

What's in the Constitution, and what is Constitutional are two very different things. How many times must I repeat this point?

Bear Arms, not Bear Firearms. Nuclear weapons, swords, knives, cannons, tanks, etc. are ARMS.

Please tell me you are not as big an idiot as you sound? Lol. READ the Constitution and the relative passages regarding our rights to bear arms, please. Then, hopefully, you will be educated enough to participate in "constitutional" discussions and cease with the complete ridiculousness. TIA.

I've read it. In no place does it say firearms, or what a arm is, or that you can ever lose the right to bear arms, or that said right can be limited by the government.

You are a very stupid person and I can't help you. You have no understanding of the fact that what the Constitution actually means when it says Bear Arms is decided upon by the courts. Nothing in the Constitution says you can lose the right to bear arms or that you can't have whatever "arms" you like. That all came about much later, from the courts, not the Constitution.

The implication? Guns, like nukes, could also be banned. Banning one arm is no different than banning another, if the courts say such a ban is Constitutional and they are allowed, by law and tradition, to do so.

While you might be top poster of the month, you are not top thinker of the month. Post less, think more.

Like I said, you are clueless. Lol.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6]while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[15]

Do not post what I already know, and understand that you do not.

Really, just how dumb are you actually? So far, you are a complete idiot incapable of any higher reasoning.

 

[P@triot]

If you’re in a “well regulated militia"

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms". Sorry dear, it doesn't say "militia". The right clearly belongs to the people know matter how desperately you wished otherwise. "Too bad, so sad"

 

[Jack4jill]

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.

It’s a total of 3 words you can’t comprehend: A “well-regulated militia”.

You trotted out Switzerland as an example of your utopia. It’s a well-regulated militia that they have. And low and behold, guys who think they should be able to buy land-mines are probably kept in padded rooms somewhere and closely monitored. Idiots like you would never see a gun in Switzerland.

Well, I guess you'll have to take that up with the courts. They have determined that the right to bear arms applies to individuals. Have you ever read the federalist papers?

The Federalist Papers don't change the fact that the court could rule either way. What it says is Constitutional is, regardless of what the actual Constitution says.

How long before you get this?

I think the Federalist Papers would help you two Einsteins figure things out.

If the Federalist Papers, I've read them, said you could beat your kids to death the courts say no, you can't, so they don't matter a damn in reality. Interesting but not binding on anything the courts do.

 

[ChrisL]

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

Because the Constitution does not say that cites can ban your right to bear arms when the Constitution says you have a right to bear arms, of course.

The Constitution also does not say what an arm is? And it also doesn't say when, or even if, you can lose that right. All of that was decided by the courts, not the people who wrote the Constitution.

What's in the Constitution, and what is Constitutional are two very different things. How many times must I repeat this point?

Bear Arms, not Bear Firearms. Nuclear weapons, swords, knives, cannons, tanks, etc. are ARMS.

Please tell me you are not as big an idiot as you sound? Lol. READ the Constitution and the relative passages regarding our rights to bear arms, please. Then, hopefully, you will be educated enough to participate in "constitutional" discussions and cease with the complete ridiculousness. TIA.

I've read it. In no place does it say firearms, or what a arm is, or that you can ever lose the right to bear arms, or that said right can be limited by the government.

You are a very stupid person and I can't help you. You have no understanding of the fact that what the Constitution actually means when it says Bear Arms is decided upon by the courts. Nothing in the Constitution says you can lose the right to bear arms or that you can't have whatever "arms" you like. That all came about much later, from the courts, not the Constitution.

The implication? Guns, like nukes, could also be banned. Banning one arm is no different than banning another, if the courts say such a ban is Constitutional and they are allowed, by law and tradition, to do so.

While you might be top poster of the month, you are not top thinker of the month. Post less, think more.

Like I said, you are clueless. Lol.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6]while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[15]

Do not post what I already know, and understand that you do not.

Really, just how dumb are you actually? So far, you are a complete idiot incapable of any higher reasoning.

Face facts, old woman! We have facts, the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights, and over 60% of the American people on our side. All you have is fear, myths, untruths, idealistic fantasies, and bullshit on your side.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Another mindless binary liberal. Her brain can only handle two options at a time. There couldn't possibly be a third option in the mind of a liberal. Incidentally, how interesting that she immediately goes to "muslims" when considering the scenario of mass destruction. Kind of like how she keeps talking about gunning down "minorities". But then again, the Democrats have a long history of hate and racism.

To answer your question my dear, there is no "detonator" for a nuclear weapon. Even the president of the United State himself cannot launch a nuclear weapon. It requires multiple people with multiple codes. They are simply designed that way to avoid any one person having the power to kill so many and to ensure that one person cannot accidentally launch.

That was one of the three idiotic points I've been praying a libtard would bring up to expose how stupid they are. Now if they will only bring up the other two points - then this issue is permanently over. Tell me Corny, how stupid do you feel right now?

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Another mindless binary liberal. Her brain can only handle two options at a time. There couldn't possibly be a third option in the mind of a liberal. Incidentally, how interesting that she immediately goes to "muslims" when considering the scenario of mass destruction. Kind of like how she keeps talking about gunning down "minorities". But then again, the Democrats have a long history of hate and racism.

To answer your question my dear, there is no "detonator" for a nuclear weapon. Even the president of the United State himself cannot launch a nuclear weapon. It requires multiple people with multiple codes. They are simply designed that way to avoid any one person having the power to kill so many and to ensure that one person cannot accidentally launch.

That was one of the three idiotic points I've been praying a libtard would bring up to expose how stupid they are. Now if they will only bring up the other two points - then this issue is permanently over. Tell me Corny, how stupid do you feel right now?

It's fear mongering at it's finest. That is all they have when it comes to these arguments. They never make coherent arguments.