With gun violence down, is America arming against an imagined threat?

[M14 Shooter]

So you're seriously saying that you need guns in case you need to fight the US army? Fuck man, stupidity like that is mind-boggling!

Whether or not it is stupid is irrelevant. Whether or not they are crazy is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the second amendment states. It confers the right to own and bear arms. Period. That you want such changed is also irrelevant unless you are attempting to pass another amendment. All this talk about passing more laws in order to do an end run around the constitution is pathetic. The reasons for wanting to bear arms does not matter. The only thing that matters is that the right is there and it must be upheld until such time that another amendment changes the second.

I'm not for outlawing guns completely, that would make no sense and would never happen. But in my view, the 2nd amendment doesn't say you can own any guns, however many you want...

Your view is based on willfulll ignorance.

It provides protection for "arms", a term that, according to current jurispridence, covers a number of classes of weapons, including all fireams.

Limiting the number of "arms" you can own violates the 2nd amendment every bits as ucm as limiting the number of times pwe week you can go to chuch violates the 2st.

 

[Mom]

Whether or not it is stupid is irrelevant. Whether or not they are crazy is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the second amendment states. It confers the right to own and bear arms. Period. That you want such changed is also irrelevant unless you are attempting to pass another amendment. All this talk about passing more laws in order to do an end run around the constitution is pathetic. The reasons for wanting to bear arms does not matter. The only thing that matters is that the right is there and it must be upheld until such time that another amendment changes the second.

I'm not for outlawing guns completely, that would make no sense and would never happen. But in my view, the 2nd amendment doesn't say you can own any guns, however many you want...

Your view is based on willfulll ignorance.

It provides protection for "arms", a term that, according to current jurispridence, covers a number of classes of weapons, including all fireams.

Limiting the number of "arms" you can own violates the 2nd amendment every bits as ucm as limiting the number of times pwe week you can go to chuch violates the 2st.

Btw, every person who joins the army is a civilian. It's true.

 

[Mom]

And the 2nd amendment doesn't say how many guns and of what kind. So are you saying that nukes are in play too?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not for outlawing guns completely, that would make no sense and would never happen. But in my view, the 2nd amendment doesn't say you can own any guns, however many you want...

Your view is based on willfulll ignorance.

It provides protection for "arms", a term that, according to current jurispridence, covers a number of classes of weapons, including all fireams.

Limiting the number of "arms" you can own violates the 2nd amendment every bits as ucm as limiting the number of times pwe week you can go to chuch violates the 2st.

Btw, every person who joins the army is a civilian. It's true.

I'm sorry -- I didn't see an actual response to my post.
Not that I am surprised.

 

[Spoonman]

So you're seriously saying that you need guns in case you need to fight the US army? Fuck man, stupidity like that is mind-boggling!

Whether or not it is stupid is irrelevant. Whether or not they are crazy is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the second amendment states. It confers the right to own and bear arms. Period. That you want such changed is also irrelevant unless you are attempting to pass another amendment. All this talk about passing more laws in order to do an end run around the constitution is pathetic. The reasons for wanting to bear arms does not matter. The only thing that matters is that the right is there and it must be upheld until such time that another amendment changes the second.

I'm not for outlawing guns completely, that would make no sense and would never happen. But in my view, the 2nd amendment doesn't say you can own any guns, however many you want...
Plus, repealing the 2nd amendment doesn't necessarily outlaw guns, the constitution would just be silent on guns, like it is on cars, or boats, or Bic pens.

what part of uninfringed implies restrictions

 

[Spoonman]

And the 2nd amendment doesn't say how many guns and of what kind. So are you saying that nukes are in play too?

why not? why should the government have a monopoly on them?

 

[Uncensored2008]

And the 2nd amendment doesn't say how many guns and of what kind. So are you saying that nukes are in play too?

Only if you keep it under your bed, sparky.....

USMB's "mom."

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not for outlawing guns completely, that would make no sense and would never happen. But in my view, the 2nd amendment doesn't say you can own any guns, however many you want...
Plus, repealing the 2nd amendment doesn't necessarily outlaw guns, the constitution would just be silent on guns, like it is on cars, or boats, or Bic pens.

Your view, however, is completely unsupported and, the worst part, requires that you ignore not only the purpose of the second amendment but also the wording and court rulings. I can only surmise that your view deals with what you want and completely ignores the second in its entirety.

Look, I understand that you might think that the second is outdated. That is your opinion BUT you do not get to ignore or infringe on rights simply because you feel them outdated. You MUST pass a new amendment that repeals the second and with it the protections for bearing arms. Such is not unprecedented. We found that the three fifths clause was ‘outdated’ (the nice way of saying that it was outright wrong) and changed that portion of the constitution though we have never passed an amendment that REDUCED the bill of rights before. You would be hard pressed to pass something like that where the aim was specifically to make the bill of rights less than what it was rather than extending rights.

Lastly, I realize that removing the second would not render guns illegal nut it is required before you attempt to infringe on this basic right. The protections that the second extend cannot be legislated away, the constitution having supremacy in that regard.

 

[legaleagle_45]

And the 2nd amendment doesn't say how many guns and of what kind. So are you saying that nukes are in play too?

The nuke argument is just as stupid as the musket argument. The 2nd protects arms, nukes are not arms. Arms are single person portable and use items of offense or defenses intended for use in man on man combat.

Even if you have a single man portable nuke, it is not designed for man on man combat. If you try to mak that argument in court, the Judge would fine you for making a frivolous argument.

 

[Mom]

And the 2nd amendment doesn't say how many guns and of what kind. So are you saying that nukes are in play too?

The nuke argument is just as stupid as the musket argument. The 2nd protects arms, nukes are not arms. Arms are single person portable and use items of offense or defenses intended for use in man on man combat.

Even if you have a single man portable nuke, it is not designed for man on man combat. If you try to mak that argument in court, the Judge would fine you for making a frivolous argument.

So who gets to decide what's in the 2nd amendment and what's not? You? Isn't it for a well-armed militia? That would include nukes, since you're going up against someone who has nukes, and you need to be well-armed with more than pea shooters.

 

[The Rabbi]

And the 2nd amendment doesn't say how many guns and of what kind. So are you saying that nukes are in play too?

The nuke argument is just as stupid as the musket argument. The 2nd protects arms, nukes are not arms. Arms are single person portable and use items of offense or defenses intended for use in man on man combat.

Even if you have a single man portable nuke, it is not designed for man on man combat. If you try to mak that argument in court, the Judge would fine you for making a frivolous argument.

So who gets to decide what's in the 2nd amendment and what's not? You? Isn't it for a well-armed militia? That would include nukes, since you're going up against someone who has nukes, and you need to be well-armed with more than pea shooters.

Who gets to decide? US Supreme Court. See: Heller v DC and Scalia's opinion there. He answers all your questions.

 

[Kondor3]

Have the Gun-Grabbers figured out yet that they're not gonna get the guns this time, either? Better luck next time, kiddies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And the 2nd amendment doesn't say how many guns and of what kind. So are you saying that nukes are in play too?

The nuke argument is just as stupid as the musket argument. The 2nd protects arms, nukes are not arms. Arms are single person portable and use items of offense or defenses intended for use in man on man combat.

Even if you have a single man portable nuke, it is not designed for man on man combat. If you try to mak that argument in court, the Judge would fine you for making a frivolous argument.

So who gets to decide what's in the 2nd amendment and what's not? You? Isn't it for a well-armed militia? That would include nukes, since you're going up against someone who has nukes, and you need to be well-armed with more than pea shooters.

Thank you for helping to prove my position that ant-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[The Rabbi]

The nuke argument is just as stupid as the musket argument. The 2nd protects arms, nukes are not arms. Arms are single person portable and use items of offense or defenses intended for use in man on man combat.

Even if you have a single man portable nuke, it is not designed for man on man combat. If you try to mak that argument in court, the Judge would fine you for making a frivolous argument.

So who gets to decide what's in the 2nd amendment and what's not? You? Isn't it for a well-armed militia? That would include nukes, since you're going up against someone who has nukes, and you need to be well-armed with more than pea shooters.

Thank you for helping to prove my position that ant-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

It's all they've got.

 

[legaleagle_45]

So who gets to decide what's in the 2nd amendment and what's not? .

The definition of arms at common law was this:

Anything a man wears or carries to strike out or defend against another. Institutes of the Lawes of England, Commentaries on Littleton 151(b), 152(b)

We employ termonolgy used by the framers as it was understood by the framers. In modern english arms are single person portable and use weapons intended for man on man combat.

Isn't it for a well-armed militia?

Well regulated militia. The purpose of the 2nd is to insure that a well regulated militia can always be organized from the population. In order to achieve this goal, the framers protected a preexisting right to have and use arms for private purposes, such as self defense. In this way they knew that a large portion of the population would have arms and be familiar with their use so that a well regulated militia could easily be organized in an emergency.

That would include nukes, since you're going up against someone who has nukes, and you need to be well-armed with more than pea shooters.

Nope, you would not use nukes for personal purposes which would prepare you for service in the well regulated militia... and of course they are not arms as that term was employed by the framers... they would be ordinance. You are not too good at this, huh?

 

[Mom]

So who gets to decide what's in the 2nd amendment and what's not? .

The definition of arms at common law was this:

Anything a man wears or carries to strike out or defend against another. Institutes of the Lawes of England, Commentaries on Littleton 151(b), 152(b)

We employ termonolgy used by the framers as it was understood by the framers. In modern english arms are single person portable and use weapons intended for man on man combat.

Isn't it for a well-armed militia?

Well regulated militia. The purpose of the 2nd is to insure that a well regulated militia can always be organized from the population. In order to achieve this goal, the framers protected a preexisting right to have and use arms for private purposes, such as self defense. In this way they knew that a large portion of the population would have arms and be familiar with their use so that a well regulated militia could easily be organized in an emergency.

That would include nukes, since you're going up against someone who has nukes, and you need to be well-armed with more than pea shooters.

Nope, you would not use nukes for personal purposes which would prepare you for service in the well regulated militia... and of course they are not arms as that term was employed by the framers... they would be ordinance. You are not too good at this, huh?

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons? Somehow I fucking seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's fucking laughable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So who gets to decide what's in the 2nd amendment and what's not? .

The definition of arms at common law was this:



We employ termonolgy used by the framers as it was understood by the framers. In modern english arms are single person portable and use weapons intended for man on man combat.



Well regulated militia. The purpose of the 2nd is to insure that a well regulated militia can always be organized from the population. In order to achieve this goal, the framers protected a preexisting right to have and use arms for private purposes, such as self defense. In this way they knew that a large portion of the population would have arms and be familiar with their use so that a well regulated militia could easily be organized in an emergency.

That would include nukes, since you're going up against someone who has nukes, and you need to be well-armed with more than pea shooters.

Nope, you would not use nukes for personal purposes which would prepare you for service in the well regulated militia... and of course they are not arms as that term was employed by the framers... they would be ordinance. You are not too good at this, huh?

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons? Somehow I fucking seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's fucking laughable.

Thank you for continuing to prove sound the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Spoonman]

So who gets to decide what's in the 2nd amendment and what's not? .

The definition of arms at common law was this:



We employ termonolgy used by the framers as it was understood by the framers. In modern english arms are single person portable and use weapons intended for man on man combat.



Well regulated militia. The purpose of the 2nd is to insure that a well regulated militia can always be organized from the population. In order to achieve this goal, the framers protected a preexisting right to have and use arms for private purposes, such as self defense. In this way they knew that a large portion of the population would have arms and be familiar with their use so that a well regulated militia could easily be organized in an emergency.

That would include nukes, since you're going up against someone who has nukes, and you need to be well-armed with more than pea shooters.

Nope, you would not use nukes for personal purposes which would prepare you for service in the well regulated militia... and of course they are not arms as that term was employed by the framers... they would be ordinance. You are not too good at this, huh?

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons? Somehow I fucking seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's fucking laughable.

no, they expected technology to evolve. infact, the framers, a decade before the 2nd amendment had an order out to a philadelphia gunmaker for a new technology weapon he had designed. it was capable of firing 20 rounds in 5 seconds utilizing a high capacity magazine. thats about what an AR 15 is capable of today. they never expected the musket was going to be the the final advancement of weapons

 

[M14 Shooter]

The definition of arms at common law was this:



We employ termonolgy used by the framers as it was understood by the framers. In modern english arms are single person portable and use weapons intended for man on man combat.



Well regulated militia. The purpose of the 2nd is to insure that a well regulated militia can always be organized from the population. In order to achieve this goal, the framers protected a preexisting right to have and use arms for private purposes, such as self defense. In this way they knew that a large portion of the population would have arms and be familiar with their use so that a well regulated militia could easily be organized in an emergency.



Nope, you would not use nukes for personal purposes which would prepare you for service in the well regulated militia... and of course they are not arms as that term was employed by the framers... they would be ordinance. You are not too good at this, huh?

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons? Somehow I fucking seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's fucking laughable.

no, they expected technology to evolve. infact, the framers, a decade before the 2nd amendment had an order out to a philadelphia gunmaker for a new technology weapon he had designed. it was capable of firing 20 rounds in 5 seconds utilizing a high capacity magazine. thats about what an AR 15 is capable of today. they never expected the musket was going to be the the final advancement of weapons

You cannot reason with someone who isn't interested in reasonong with you.

 

[Mom]

The definition of arms at common law was this:



We employ termonolgy used by the framers as it was understood by the framers. In modern english arms are single person portable and use weapons intended for man on man combat.



Well regulated militia. The purpose of the 2nd is to insure that a well regulated militia can always be organized from the population. In order to achieve this goal, the framers protected a preexisting right to have and use arms for private purposes, such as self defense. In this way they knew that a large portion of the population would have arms and be familiar with their use so that a well regulated militia could easily be organized in an emergency.



Nope, you would not use nukes for personal purposes which would prepare you for service in the well regulated militia... and of course they are not arms as that term was employed by the framers... they would be ordinance. You are not too good at this, huh?

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons? Somehow I fucking seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's fucking laughable.

no, they expected technology to evolve. infact, the framers, a decade before the 2nd amendment had an order out to a philadelphia gunmaker for a new technology weapon he had designed. it was capable of firing 20 rounds in 5 seconds utilizing a high capacity magazine. thats about what an AR 15 is capable of today. they never expected the musket was going to be the the final advancement of weapons

So if the US army attacks you with tanks, the 2nd prohibits you from using tanks back? FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!