Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[NYcarbineer]

The reason automatic weapons can be restricted is that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule so.

When did the Supreme Court ever rule on automatic weapons?

The liberals have used so many tools and tactics to usurp the will of the people and the U.S. Constitution that they can't even remember which one they used which time.

What they don't understand is that the US Constitution does not tell us what we can do, it tells us what government can't do.

If you believe that a 10 year old should be able to go buy a machine gun, no questions asked,

then let's hear that argument.

That's your argument that the 2nd amendment protects the right of ten year olds to buy and possess machine guns?

Were you homeschooled by any chance?

 

[Rustic]

When did the Supreme Court ever rule on automatic weapons?

The liberals have used so many tools and tactics to usurp the will of the people and the U.S. Constitution that they can't even remember which one they used which time.

What they don't understand is that the US Constitution does not tell us what we can do, it tells us what government can't do.

If you believe that a 10 year old should be able to go buy a machine gun, no questions asked,

then let's hear that argument.

That's your argument that the 2nd amendment protects the right of ten year olds to buy and possess machine guns?

Were you homeschooled by any chance?

only fucking idiot would call an AR 15 an "assault weapon"
On the Pineridge reservation by the federal government...

 

[P@triot]

When did the Supreme Court ever rule on automatic weapons?

The liberals have used so many tools and tactics to usurp the will of the people and the U.S. Constitution that they can't even remember which one they used which time.

What they don't understand is that the US Constitution does not tell us what we can do, it tells us what government can't do.

If you believe that a 10 year old should be able to go buy a machine gun, no questions asked,

then let's hear that argument.

That's your argument that the 2nd amendment protects the right of ten year olds to buy and possess machine guns?

Were you homeschooled by any chance?

Man alive....talk about a "straw man". Where did anyone say anything about a child? You do realize that children can't vote, right? And you know they can't drive either, right? And you do know that they can't enter into a contract? Can't be brought up on charges in a court of law?

You would rather say any bizarre thing and grasp desperately at any straw than acknowledge the American people have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, uh?

 

[P@triot]

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes fully automatic weapons from 2nd Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 1st Amendment libtards are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. If the founders couldn't possibly have seen the advancement in weapons technology and never meant for the Constitution to protect that, then they also couldn't possibly have seen the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, texts, etc. which can spread disinformation and misinformation around the globe in milliseconds.

Oops....

So you agree that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional. lol

You seem desperate for that to be the case. Not entirely sure why. But no - freedom of speech and freedom of press are about WORDS. Photography didn't even exist back when the U.S. Constitution was written (whereas guns, cannons, etc. did).

You're really looking ridiculous here grasping this desperately at straws. Are you sure you don't want to try another approach?

That was weak and pathetic even for you.

Right? I thought the exact same thing about NYCarbineers really sad and desperate grasping at straws. Glad you saw it the same way!

Freedom of the press covers images and they are limited.
The right to bear arms can be limited using the same jurisprudence.

Fact.

I think we've indisputably established that you are "fact" adverse already and wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you in the face. Freedom of the press and freedom of the speech are for WORDS. Otherwise I could stab you to death and proclaim it falls under my "freedom of speech". It applies to WORDS. Images can and do have limitations. But thanks for playing. Each time you lob one up over the plate, I smash it out of the park and take my victory lap around the bases.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The liberals have used so many tools and tactics to usurp the will of the people and the U.S. Constitution that they can't even remember which one they used which time.

What they don't understand is that the US Constitution does not tell us what we can do, it tells us what government can't do.

If you believe that a 10 year old should be able to go buy a machine gun, no questions asked,

then let's hear that argument.

That's your argument that the 2nd amendment protects the right of ten year olds to buy and possess machine guns?

Were you homeschooled by any chance?

Man alive....talk about a "straw man". Where did anyone say anything about a child? You do realize that children can't vote, right? And you know they can't drive either, right? And you do know that they can't enter into a contract? Can't be brought up on charges in a court of law?

You would rather say any bizarre thing and grasp desperately at any straw than acknowledge the American people have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, uh?

Just for the record, do you or do you not believe that the 2nd amendment allows for exceptions?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you agree that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional. lol

You seem desperate for that to be the case. Not entirely sure why. But no - freedom of speech and freedom of press are about WORDS. Photography didn't even exist back when the U.S. Constitution was written (whereas guns, cannons, etc. did).

You're really looking ridiculous here grasping this desperately at straws. Are you sure you don't want to try another approach?

That was weak and pathetic even for you.

Right? I thought the exact same thing about NYCarbineers really sad and desperate grasping at straws. Glad you saw it the same way!

Freedom of the press covers images and they are limited.
The right to bear arms can be limited using the same jurisprudence.

Fact.

I think we've indisputably established that you are "fact" adverse already and wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you in the face. Freedom of the press and freedom of the speech are for WORDS. Otherwise I could stab you to death and proclaim it falls under my "freedom of speech". It applies to WORDS. Images can and do have limitations. But thanks for playing. Each time you lob one up over the plate, I smash it out of the park and take my victory lap around the bases.

Does the first amendment say that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected as free speech?

 

[P@triot]

Just for the record, do you or do you not believe that the 2nd amendment allows for exceptions?

Just for the record - I do not believe anything. I know for a fact - unequivocally - that the American people have an unfettered right to arms. Not guns. Not muskets. Arms. And no, there is no "exceptions" to that. I can't make it any clearer than that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just for the record, do you or do you not believe that the 2nd amendment allows for exceptions?

Just for the record - I do not believe anything. I know for a fact - unequivocally - that the American people have an unfettered right to arms. Not guns. Not muskets. Arms. And no, there is no "exceptions" to that. I can't make it any clearer than that.

What are the exceptions to freedom of speech, the press, and religion in the 1st Amendment?

 

[P@triot]

Does the first amendment say that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected as free speech?

Haha! I've dying for a liberal to bring that up. You absolutely, positively have a Constitutional right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The U.S. Constitution guaranteed you rights - not safety and/or security.

But....do you know why you cannot legally yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Because the Supreme Court illegally said as much? Nope. Not at all. The reason you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater is because you are on private property and have purchased a ticket binding you to the rules of that private institution. That private institution has every right to decide what you can and can't do on their property, say and not say on their property, see and not see on their property, etc. And you have the choice to not go there if you don't like it.

The theater has every power under the Constitution to stop you from yelling "fire". The government does not. And that is the difference. And that is a fact.

 

[P@triot]

Prove that child pornography is not protected by the 1st amendment, using only the wording of the 1st amendment.

I already did brother. Like more than a half a dozen times. Here they all are for your browsing pleasure (I've even taken the time to grab the links for each of them just to make it easier for all of my friends on USMB - both right and left - to see). These all obliterate your absurd and desperate "child pornography" cries.

#1161

#1165

#1167

#1170

#1175

#1186

And this one here obliterates the equally absurd and equally desperate "well I guess that means everyone should have a nuclear bomb" libtard battle-cry:
#1188

 

[P@triot]

Just for the record, do you or do you not believe that the 2nd amendment allows for exceptions?

Just for the record - I do not believe anything. I know for a fact - unequivocally - that the American people have an unfettered right to arms. Not guns. Not muskets. Arms. And no, there is no "exceptions" to that. I can't make it any clearer than that.

What are the exceptions to freedom of speech, the press, and religion in the 1st Amendment?

None. They don't exist. You don't seem to grasp that a right is a right. It's not optional, it's not negotiable, it's not interpretable, it's not limited, it's not questionable, and it's not a bargaining chip.

I get the feeling that liberals find living in the U.S. too "scary". They don't like liberty. It means that people can do things they want to do, make their own decisions, not be limited to the liberal "comfort zone", etc. It's a shame that they would rather have little or no freedoms in exchange to experience the extreme oppression that makes them feel "safe". Almost like a baby in the womb. No way to go anywhere, do anything, see anything, say anything, experience anything, but it is warm, soft, and comfortable. Frankly, I'd much rather leave the womb and live a little. Yeah - you may get some paper cuts on this side, scrapes and bruises, bumps and bleeding, but the liberty of it makes it a hell of a lot more interesting and well worth it.

 

[Political Junky]

Trump changed his mind about gun ownership, and is now embraced by the NRA.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just for the record, do you or do you not believe that the 2nd amendment allows for exceptions?

Just for the record - I do not believe anything. I know for a fact - unequivocally - that the American people have an unfettered right to arms. Not guns. Not muskets. Arms. And no, there is no "exceptions" to that. I can't make it any clearer than that.

What are the exceptions to freedom of speech, the press, and religion in the 1st Amendment?

The exceptions are when there are laws written against it.

For instance, let's say you had the money and wanted to buy a fully armed tank, but your city or state wouldn't let you. In order to find out if owning a tank is constitutional, you would have to challenge it in our court systems.

If the courts kept finding your claim invalid, then it ends up at the Supreme Court where the final decision of constitutionality is decided.

If they decide that you don't have the right to own a tank, then your city or state wins the battle. If they decide you do have the constitutional right to own the tank, the city or state can't do anything to stop you from buying one. It's the law of the land.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes fully automatic weapons from 2nd Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 1st Amendment libtards are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. If the founders couldn't possibly have seen the advancement in weapons technology and never meant for the Constitution to protect that, then they also couldn't possibly have seen the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, texts, etc. which can spread disinformation and misinformation around the globe in milliseconds.

Oops....

The reason automatic weapons can be restricted is that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule so.

When did the Supreme Court ever rule on automatic weapons?

The liberals have used so many tools and tactics to usurp the will of the people and the U.S. Constitution that they can't even remember which one they used which time.

What they don't understand is that the US Constitution does not tell us what we can do, it tells us what government can't do.

If you believe that a 10 year old should be able to go buy a machine gun, no questions asked,

then let's hear that argument.

No I don't believe that. You have no constitutional rights until you become an adult. Until that time, you are under the jurisdiction of your parents or care takers.

If the school suspects your child of being in possession of illegal narcotics or even a weapon, they don't need a search warrant to search his locker. They just cut the lock and search. Out of respect to the parents, they may contact them first, but not because they have any legal obligation.

 

[there4eyeM]

This is not an assault rifle. Pennsylvania rifles were manufactured in the U.S. Making gunpowder is not very sophisticated chemistry. Arms were illegal for common people in most (or all) European countries at that time.
At that time, a rifle like the above was superior in many ways to British firearms. It took an expert 20 seconds to reload it. The danger to bystanders and others was nothing compared to modern repeating rifles.
Imagining things are as they are not is maladapted to functioning in civilized society. Insisting upon extreme positions wins no support.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just for the record, do you or do you not believe that the 2nd amendment allows for exceptions?

Just for the record - I do not believe anything. I know for a fact - unequivocally - that the American people have an unfettered right to arms. Not guns. Not muskets. Arms. And no, there is no "exceptions" to that. I can't make it any clearer than that.

What you’ve made clear is your ignorance, stupidity, and the fact you’re comprehensively wrong.

Even your beloved Scalia reaffirmed the fact that no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; or is Scalia ‘wrong’ as well.

Indeed, In Heller, Scalia compared the Second Amendment to the First, in that the rights enshrined in both are again neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited’:

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

So again, is it your position that Scalia was ‘wrong,’ that you know more than the Great Conservative Jurist himself, as well as the four other conservative justices who concurred with the fact the no right is ‘unlimited,’ including the Second Amendment right.

Clearly you’ve gone beyond the limits of ridiculous rightwing ignorance and stupidity and entered another bizarre universe of moronic wrongheadedness and delusion that is the realm of TPM idiocy; even the most extreme, reactionary rightwing loon doesn’t buy into the baseless notion that rights are ‘absolute.’

 

[ChrisL]

Freedom of the press - in the Constitution - doesn't exclude child pornography, does it?

Good grief. This is a sure sign of desperation. Lol.

Rottweiler says the 2nd Amendment is 'limitless'. If he's right, isn't the 1st Amendment also 'limitless'?

She fled the interview. Big surprise.

Well, I had no idea this was an interview. In order for me to grant you an interview, I want to get paid, of course.

Are you really this dense or are you pretending to be because being rational would fuck with your agenda?

What are you talking about? You said I ran from the interview. Lol. Your words "she fled the interview." I get that your an angry person with no sense of humor though.

 

[ChrisL]

This is not an assault rifle. Pennsylvania rifles were manufactured in the U.S. Making gunpowder is not very sophisticated chemistry. Arms were illegal for common people in most (or all) European countries at that time.
At that time, a rifle like the above was superior in many ways to British firearms. It took an expert 20 seconds to reload it. The danger to bystanders and others was nothing compared to modern repeating rifles.
Imagining things are as they are not is maladapted to functioning in civilized society. Insisting upon extreme positions wins no support.

"Imagining things as they are not is maladapted to functioning in civilized society. Insisting on extreme positions wins no support." Hmm. Reminds me of another hot topic on USMB.