Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No sane person is claiming they should own a tank or a nuclear weapon, but liberal scum just make up those claims so they will have more stupud shit to post here.
How about nuclear weapons?
Is the reasoning sound not to have those available and/or otherwise accessible to citizens?
Why/why not?
How about nuclear weapons?
Is the reasoning sound not to have those available and/or otherwise accessible to citizens?
Why/why not?
I would love to own a tank that would make rush hour traffic a breeze.
How about nuclear weapons?
Is the reasoning sound not to have those available and/or otherwise accessible to citizens?
Why/why not?
I would love to own a tank that would make rush hour traffic a breeze.
Not to mention parking.
What makes you think I don't own a tank?
Funny, I know where there's a tank available within 7 miles of here. It an M-60 and it runs.
If you want to limit legally-allowed weapons to only those available at the time of the writing of the Constitution, then you have to also accept that the First Amendment doesn't cover speech on the internet, on television and radio; The 13th Amendment outlawing slavery doesn't exist; and the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote, doesn't exist.
How about it? If you want to arbitrarily limit freedoms, limit them all.
That's an interesting logic-leap. Let's take it apart...
While the progression from sloppy musket to Minié ball to semiauto to nukes can be said to radically redefine the nature of "arms", the same cannot be said of the concept of "speech" as a result of internet and broadcasting. True, these technologies greatly expand the scope of the audience hearing that speech, as arms technology greatly expands the scope of what arms can do; but since speech is communication of ideas and arms is communication of deadly force, they are of two different natures. To make this equation requires that the criterion be reduced to how many people are affected by said Constitutional right, rather than the nature of that right. The reach of speech changed with mass media, but the nature did not. And more to the point, speech is not life-endangering.
I'd say the question of types of speech (hate speech, pornography, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater) would be much more to the point of defining A1 than how many people you can reach with it.
An interesting extension, although how you can apply the same extension to A13 and A19 eludes me. These are neither a question of quantity (how many women or slaves exist) nor of nature (definition of woman, definition of slave).
Excuse me?
Are you aware of the progress of arms before the invention of the firearm? Do you honestly believe that the founders were ignorant of it just because you think flint knives are toys?
I have a tank and a rocket launcher. I use them frequently. But if some morons have their way my copy of Call of Duty will be outlawed
That's a rather narrow definition of "to bear". It can also mean simply "to be equipped with".
I'm sure the bear they meant in 1789 meant to carry.
Which explains why they did not use horses, donkeys, or wagons, to move anything.
No sane person is claiming they should own a tank or a nuclear weapon, but liberal scum just make up those claims so they will have more stupud shit to post here.
That's an interesting logic-leap. Let's take it apart...
While the progression from sloppy musket to Minié ball to semiauto to nukes can be said to radically redefine the nature of "arms", the same cannot be said of the concept of "speech" as a result of internet and broadcasting. True, these technologies greatly expand the scope of the audience hearing that speech, as arms technology greatly expands the scope of what arms can do; but since speech is communication of ideas and arms is communication of deadly force, they are of two different natures. To make this equation requires that the criterion be reduced to how many people are affected by said Constitutional right, rather than the nature of that right. The reach of speech changed with mass media, but the nature did not. And more to the point, speech is not life-endangering.
I'd say the question of types of speech (hate speech, pornography, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater) would be much more to the point of defining A1 than how many people you can reach with it.
An interesting extension, although how you can apply the same extension to A13 and A19 eludes me. These are neither a question of quantity (how many women or slaves exist) nor of nature (definition of woman, definition of slave).
Excuse me?
Are you aware of the progress of arms before the invention of the firearm? Do you honestly believe that the founders were ignorant of it just because you think flint knives are toys?
Whaaaaa...?
Nothing up there has anything to do with the past before 1788. It's all about development after. Anything developed up to that time would fall under the contemporary definition of "arms".
Strange post.
I'm sure the bear they meant in 1789 meant to carry.
Which explains why they did not use horses, donkeys, or wagons, to move anything.
When you're using a horse/donkey/cart to move something, it's the animal/animal/vehicle that's doing the "bearing". That's why we call them beasts of burden.
I have a tank and a rocket launcher. I use them frequently. But if some morons have their way my copy of Call of Duty will be outlawed
Gramps plays COD? Nice!
No sane person is claiming they should own a tank or a nuclear weapon, but liberal scum just make up those claims so they will have more stupud shit to post here.
Some of the deeper readers seem to think the thread is about weapons. Actually it's about logic.
The benefits of actually reading the thread...
Excuse me?
Are you aware of the progress of arms before the invention of the firearm? Do you honestly believe that the founders were ignorant of it just because you think flint knives are toys?
Whaaaaa...?
Nothing up there has anything to do with the past before 1788. It's all about development after. Anything developed up to that time would fall under the contemporary definition of "arms".
Strange post.
Are you trying to tell me that, if you brought a soldier from that time to today, didn't tell him anything, and pointed a bazooka at him, he wouldn't understand the threat?
No sane person is claiming they should own a tank or a nuclear weapon, but liberal scum just make up those claims so they will have more stupud shit to post here.
Some of the deeper readers seem to think the thread is about weapons. Actually it's about logic.
The benefits of actually reading the thread...
I have read the thread and would respectful submit there is little if any logic here.
So circumstances matter, you lost your own argument.
Uh....no, I didn't. Apparently you lost your argument because you just demonstrated your ignorance of logic.
Which explains why they did not use horses, donkeys, or wagons, to move anything.
When you're using a horse/donkey/cart to move something, it's the animal/animal/vehicle that's doing the "bearing". That's why we call them beasts of burden.
No the horse is doing the toting, bearing has nothing to do with carrying.
1. To hold up; support.
2. To carry from one place to another; transport.
3. To carry in the mind; harbor: bear a grudge.
4. To transmit at large; relate: bearing glad tidings.
5. To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.
6. To have as a quality; exhibit: "A thousand different shapes it bears" (Abraham Cowley).
7. To carry (oneself) in a specified way; conduct: She bore herself with dignity.
8. To be accountable for; assume: bearing heavy responsibilities.
9. To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying.
10. To call for; warrant: This case bears investigation.
11. To give birth to: bore six children in five years.
12. To produce; yield: plants bearing flowers.
13. To offer; render: I will bear witness to the deed.
14. To move by or as if by steady pressure; push: "
