Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 35,378
- 20,137
- 1,915
In fact, I do disagree with it.How about nuclear weapons?
Is the reasoning sound not to have those available and/or otherwise accessible to citizens?
Why/why not?
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.
In fact, I do disagree with it.How about nuclear weapons?
Is the reasoning sound not to have those available and/or otherwise accessible to citizens?
Why/why not?
Ok, then yes.
My strict interpretation of the Constitution is that US citizens have given themselves the right to be armed, with ANY arms, they choose to use.
US Citizens can also repeal or alter this right, i.e., they can amend the Constituion.
However, niether the Executive can enforce rules that are unconstitutional, nor can the Legislature pass laws in conflict with the constitution. Ironically, the potential for any branch of government acting Ex-consitutionally is precisely the reason US Citizens have given themselves the right to be armed.
Do citizens have the right to carry their firearms wherever they go?
No, this is not a constitutional right.
Do citizens have the right to carry their firearms wherever they go?
No, this is not a constitutional right.
So you can keep but you can't bear?
No, this is not a constitutional right.
So you can keep but you can't bear?
The US Constitution does not say US Citizens can carry their firearms wherever they go.
It also doesn't say that they cannot.No, this is not a constitutional right.
So you can keep but you can't bear?
The US Constitution does not say US Citizens can carry their firearms wherever they go.
I will try to take a photo of my neighbour's tank ...I don't promise when ...I will try! Some of these days.
So you can keep but you can't bear?
The US Constitution does not say US Citizens can carry their firearms wherever they go.
What does 'bear' mean?
How about nuclear weapons?
Is the reasoning sound not to have those available and/or otherwise accessible to citizens?
Why/why not?
I will try to take a photo of my neighbour's tank ...I don't promise when ...I will try! Some of these days.
Well if it's camouflaged we won't see it there, will we?
Show your neighbour this --
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF4EjrrtBOw]The Ballad of Jake and Ten-Ton Molly - YouTube[/ame]
Logic requires rules, you are giving us your rules
I and others disagree
thus maybe our rules are the logical rules or maybe they are something else like pragmatism or reality.
I think you miss the fact your logic is full of assumptions and only logical to you and the bubble you exist in.
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.
How many miles does it have and what's the MPG?
Stupidest straw man argument on the subject to date...And that's some hurdle to clear.
Nobody can "bear" a tank.
/thread
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?
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. Nothing remotely close to anything even vaguely like that.
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.
Logic requires rules, you are giving us your rules, I and others disagree, thus maybe our rules are the logical rules or maybe they are something else like pragmatism or reality. I think you miss the fact your logic is full of assumptions and only logical to you and the bubble you exist in. Circumstance matter, you said so, now think.
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.
The hell it doesn't. I refer you to the most recent definition entry:
Source: Bear - definition of Bear by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.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: "
Stupidest straw man argument on the subject to date...And that's some hurdle to clear.
Nobody can "bear" a tank.
/thread
Sure they can. I have a friend up here in the wilderness AKA Seattle that has a Sherman and an Armored Personell Carrier with a 50 cal turrit.