What firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment

[AmericanFirst]

These second amendment nut cases should be allowed to buy all the muskets they want. Hell, let 'em form little neighborhood militias and go play war anytime they'd like - plenty of woodlands still left out there.

Who's trying to stop them?

If you do not like the constitution or us 2nd amendment nuts maybe socialists like your idiot self should move to Russia where you would feel right at home.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

These second amendment nut cases should be allowed to buy all the muskets they want. Hell, let 'em form little neighborhood militias and go play war anytime they'd like - plenty of woodlands still left out there.

Who's trying to stop them?

You should remove yourself from the internet and start using your voice and Parchment and quill, because they never thought that an ink pen and a computer would have been the means to exercise your first amendment right.

Should I be allowed to make ricin and buy yellowcake?

You can make anything you wish to make, but you will be responsible for your actions. But asked you earlier are you a troll, but now I must ask are you running for troll of the year?

 

[JBeukema]

So I should or should not be allowed to make ricin in my garage and buy yellowcake?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So I should or should not be allowed to make ricin in my garage and buy yellowcake?

Rad my post again troll.

 

[JBeukema]

So I should or should not be allowed to make ricin in my garage and buy yellowcake?

Rad my post again troll.

Huh?


Answer the question.

 

[Charles_Main]

Good to see only one Ignorant asshole voted none of the Above.

 

[Cain]

I believe every weapon.

 

[Montrovant]

The second amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms....would it be constitutional to make buying, selling and manufacturing arms illegal?

 

[BrianH]

Words mean nothing.

Did they free their slaves?


Did they free their children?


I can find quotes from Mao that make him sound like Jesus- but the actions he and his followers undertook would render them meaningless, too. Kinda like all those 'family values' Republicans

Yes dip shit, shortly after the separation from Britain, many of the FF did release their slaves. Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams are just some of them Franklin became the president of an abolitionist movement in 1785, Washington became more and more against slavery around the Revolution and released his slaves after the death of his wife. He even made sure that many of the children were taken care of and received education. Read a little history before you start preaching nonsense..

Brian, please read instead of removing all doubt that you are a homer.

Very, very, very freed their slaves, very few. Don't look silly again, please.

Quit posting two line come-backs that have no merit. Look it up for yourself.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So I should or should not be allowed to make ricin in my garage and buy yellowcake?

Rad my post again troll.

Huh?


Answer the question.

Read my fucking post that answered your goddamn question troll

 

[BrianH]

Making the FF and COTUS wrong

And COTUS prevented any amendment to abolish slavery, btw


Meaning that if you believe in the constitution, you believe that abolishing slavery in 1807 would have been evil and wrong because it would have been unconstitutional.


Sometimes the Law is simply wrong.

The FF new that if they abolished slavery then the southern half of the colonies would secede from the Union, just as they did in 1865.

Yes, we know, the Southerners we all evil slaveholders while the North was always a bastion of liberty in all the years preceding the war
[FONT=verdana, arial][/FONT]

I live in the south dumbass.

 

[BrianH]

you cannot talk shit about the founders then praise the flag, country and the constitution you hypocrit piece of shit. It was the founders who gave it to you..

how many times have you insulted the wobblies and suffragettes (read: Evil lefty communists) who made america as good as it is today?

are you a troll? Just wondering?

yes

 

[BrianH]

The second amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms....would it be constitutional to make buying, selling and manufacturing arms illegal?

Yup, the Amendment says that our right can't be infringed. Technically it already is with all the regulation, however, I don't mind some of it as long as it doesn't prohibit me from buying. Making it illegal to buy, sell, and manufacture would infringe upon our ablility to obtain one.

 

[Mini 14]

Charles, I respect what you are saying, but the Constitution, as far as slavery was concerned, was, as Garrison wrote, a compact with hell. The Constitution did not end slavery. A mighty civil war that killed 3 and wounded 5 of every hundred Americans ended it. The 13th Amendment was the result of the Civil War.

The Founders failed. However, Charles, I don't know if they could have done anything else.

Prior to the Civil War, slavery was a common, global practice. It was brought here from England, France, Germany, Ireland, and everywhere else that an immigrant left to come here. When slavery became an issue in this country, we went to war with ourselves and almost tore the Union apart.

I don't know.....

Maybe the FF were a whole lot smarter than you and I and realized that we needed to unite on the issues which we agreed on first, become independent, establish stability and prosperity, and then fight amongst ourselves over those issues on which we disagreed. Had they specifically abolished slavery in the founding document, maybe half the country would have said "Fuck that. Here is OUR document instead."

It was going to take everything we had to win independence from England, and maybe......just maybe.....fighting amongst ourselves at that moment wasn't a great idea. Until we were no longer under British Law, our opinion on the legality of slavery was moot, because the law that governed us prior left it perfectly legal.

Almost 100 years later, we took the issue up, after support for ending slavery had grown tremendously in the States and around the world. And even at that point, we were so divided on the issue that it almost tore the Union apart.

Had the FF addressed slavery at the onset, you would be sipping tea and playing cricket today, because the US would not exist. We united first on common ground, won our independence, then fought amongst ourselves on issues less significant. There were wise men at the time who understood that, acknowledged and accepted it, and created an environment where it could be addressed at the proper time.

And therein lies the beauty, and the power, of the US Constitution.....that it protects ALL people who it governs.

Even the ones who are a whole lot dumber than the guys who wrote it.

 

[BrianH]

Charles, I respect what you are saying, but the Constitution, as far as slavery was concerned, was, as Garrison wrote, a compact with hell. The Constitution did not end slavery. A mighty civil war that killed 3 and wounded 5 of every hundred Americans ended it. The 13th Amendment was the result of the Civil War.

The Founders failed. However, Charles, I don't know if they could have done anything else.

Prior to the Civil War, slavery was a common, global practice. It was brought here from England, France, Germany, Ireland, and everywhere else that an immigrant left to come here. When slavery became an issue in this country, we went to war with ourselves and almost tore the Union apart.

I don't know.....

Maybe the FF were a whole lot smarter than you and I and realized that we needed to unite on the issues which we agreed on first, become independent, establish stability and prosperity, and then fight amongst ourselves over those issues on which we disagreed. Had they specifically abolished slavery in the founding document, maybe half the country would have said "Fuck that. Here is OUR document instead."

It was going to take everything we had to win independence from England, and maybe......just maybe.....fighting amongst ourselves at that moment wasn't a great idea. Until we were no longer under British Law, our opinion on the legality of slavery was moot, because the law that governed us prior left it perfectly legal.

Almost 100 years later, we took the issue up, after support for ending slavery had grown tremendously in the States and around the world. And even at that point, we were so divided on the issue that it almost tore the Union apart.

Had the FF addressed slavery at the onset, you would be sipping tea and playing cricket today, because the US would not exist. We united first on common ground, won our independence, then fought amongst ourselves on issues less significant. There were wise men at the time who understood that, acknowledged and accepted it, and created an environment where it could be addressed at the proper time.

And therein lies the beauty, and the power, of the US Constitution.....that it protects ALL people who it governs.

Even the ones who are a whole lot dumber than the guys who wrote it.

Eactly. Had the FF decided to abolish slavery right then and there, half the colonies would have seceeded. There would have been a very high chance that the British would have returned to wreck shop on a divided nation. We'd never have truly won independence. Starchy has a hard time reading between the lines.

 

[The T]

Are you responding to me or to JBEK because I agree with you. Without collectiveness at an individual level, you would not have a national community. I agree that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to own arms.

I know. I was responding to the silliness that JB brought up thru you because JB is a waste of time, and so is on ignore.

There's -no question- that the 2nd protects and individual right, regardless of that individual's relationship to any militia.

Then why does it mention the militia at all? And why did you spend page after page tying the right to have a gun to the concept of a militia?

At the time militias were pretty much what towns had for protection, outside the British Army.

 

[Mini 14]

you cannot talk shit about the founders then praise the flag, country and the constitution you hypocrit piece of shit. It was the founders who gave it to you..

How many times have you insulted the Wobblies and Suffragettes (read: evil lefty communists) who made America as good as it is today?

Are you a troll? Just wondering?

I think we have a winner....

This thread is my first real "interaction" with JB (where more than one or two dumbass comments are strung together to form "an argument"). It has become clear, after 20 pages, that he simply likes debate more than he has any meaningful opinion, because his logic changes to match whatever the most recent post is. He has all the answers (more accurately, all the questions), and the issues are all resolved, so there is no reason to entertain anything upon which he disagrees, doesn't understand, or conflicts with his personal perception. He is omniscient, and we are all lucky to be allowed to live in his world.

Still, its been an interesting debate.

Sort of like when my daughter gets on one of her "But, why?" terminal loops of curiosity.

 

[The T]

What about the ink pen or the internet? Did the founders think we would be using email and ink pens to exercise our first amendment rights. Or should we still be using parchment and with quail? Should we appeal all laws that weren't written on parchment and with quail?

First Amendment means what it says no matter the vehicle used for such speech. It's that simple.

So too then must the 2nd.

True.

 

[BrianH]

How many times have you insulted the Wobblies and Suffragettes (read: evil lefty communists) who made America as good as it is today?

Are you a troll? Just wondering?

I think we have a winner....

This thread is my first real "interaction" with JB (where more than one or two dumbass comments are strung together to form "an argument"). It has become clear, after 20 pages, that he simply likes debate more than he has any meaningful opinion, because his logic changes to match whatever the most recent post is. He has all the answers (more accurately, all the questions), and the issues are all resolved, so there is no reason to entertain anything upon which he disagrees, doesn't understand, or conflicts with his personal perception. He is omniscient, and we are all lucky to be allowed to live in his world.

Still, its been an interesting debate.

Sort of like when my daughter gets on one of her "But, why?" terminal loops of curiosity.

Say it ain't so Joe?! lol. Absolutely right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution did not end the terrible practice of slavery.

A massive civil war with massive casualties and destruction ended slavery.

The winners used he Constitution to ratify that victory.

The far right reactionaries refuse to accept the unqualified fact the FF failed on the issue of slavery. Case closed.