The Right of the People (individually) to...

We should all have the right to full-auto military assault rifles and S.A.W.s

  • Yes.

    Votes: 14 43.8%
  • No.

    Votes: 18 56.3%

  • Total voters
    32
That only makes sense if they didnt leave provisions in the document to make changes to it.
Who is making changes to it?

One clause states a purpose (which has been held to be wholly irrelevant), the other states the enumerated right in unequivocal terms.
 
The right of the people to have motherfucking machine guns, shall not be infringed.

We must get back to the true meaning of infringement:

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
  1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
    "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
    synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
    • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
      "his legal rights were being infringed"
      synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;
Doesnt say anything about machine guns. and it also says its contingent on having a well regulated militia like the national guard. Sorry
Never does it say "like the national guard". Sorry...
It didnt have to. See the definition of regulated militia I posted above.
Your definition is nonsense.
 
The right of the people to have motherfucking machine guns, shall not be infringed.

We must get back to the true meaning of infringement:

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
  1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
    "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
    synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
    • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
      "his legal rights were being infringed"
      synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;
Doesnt say anything about machine guns. and it also says its contingent on having a well regulated militia like the national guard. Sorry
Never does it say "like the national guard". Sorry...
It didnt have to. See the definition of regulated militia I posted above.
Your definition is nonsense.
Your thought process is trash.
 
I voted "No". Firearms available after December 15, 1791 (ratification of the Bill of Rights) are not automatically grandfathered into the 2nd amendment given my view that the Constitution is not a "living" document.
I don't believe it is a living document either, but you are the one torturing the interpretation of the Amendment to mean only those arms in existence at the time.

Again:

Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U.S. ____ (holding that "arms" in the 2nd Amendment extends to all instruments that are bearable, including arms not in existence when the founders wrote the amendment).

I certainly don't see it that way. I see it the same as the government's right to deal with censorship matters for the technology of radio and television developed after the Bill of Rights in comparison to newspapers and printing press days of the Bill of Rights era.
 
I certainly don't see it that way. I see it the same as the government's right to deal with censorship matters for the technology of radio and television developed after the Bill of Rights in comparison to newspapers and printing press days of the Bill of Rights era.
You mean, the founders could not have foreseen these instrumentalities, and therefore, the Constitution must adapt and shift meaning to deal with these new technologies? Is that what you are saying?
 
We're all arguing about a gun that almost no one owns. What we need to get rid of RIGHT NOW is the Bump Stock that allowed Paddock's semiautomatics to perform like a machine gun (fully automatic) without any tricky modification. They cost about $300. They need to go away. Now.
 
We're all arguing about a gun that almost no one owns. What we need to get rid of RIGHT NOW is the Bump Stock that allowed Paddock's semiautomatics to perform like a machine gun (fully automatic) without any tricky modification. They cost about $300. They need to go away. Now.
I ordered two yesterday in anticipation of commie leftist out cries just like yours; that I knew we're coming. And as usual... I was right. By the way... Has there been a confirmation that one of these devices was in fact used by the shooter? If so; a link would be great.
 
We're all arguing about a gun that almost no one owns. What we need to get rid of RIGHT NOW is the Bump Stock that allowed Paddock's semiautomatics to perform like a machine gun (fully automatic) without any tricky modification. They cost about $300. They need to go away. Now.
Or, just give everybody full-autos, and nobody will be surprised when some asshole tries this shit again. I am telling you, this issue will be resolved in short order if everyone can shoot back with equal firepower. It's the only real solution.
 
I ordered two yesterday in anticipation of commie leftist out cries just like yours; that I knew we're coming. And as usual... I was right. By the way... Has there been a confirmation that one of these devices was in fact used by the shooter? If so; a link would be great.
No. The gun grabbing commies are not letting a good tragedy go to waste, and are attempting to capitalize on this opportunity to ban something they dislike.

The bump stocks are inconsistent and will vary the rate of fire. Based on the audio I heard, there was no variance. That doesn't mean he didn't use them. I am just saying that I would believe that he did use them if I had heard that variance in rate of fire. I believe (but have not other confirmation) that be mechanically modified the riffles to fire full-auto (which is not really that hard to do).
 
I ordered two yesterday in anticipation of commie leftist out cries just like yours; that I knew we're coming. And as usual... I was right. By the way... Has there been a confirmation that one of these devices was in fact used by the shooter? If so; a link would be great.
No. The gun grabbing commies are not letting a good tragedy go to waste, and are attempting to capitalize on this opportunity to ban something they dislike.

The bump stocks are inconsistent and will vary the rate of fire. Based on the audio I heard, there was no variance. That doesn't mean he didn't use them. I am just saying that I would believe that he did use them if I had heard that variance in rate of fire. I believe (but have not other confirmation) that be mechanically modified the riffles to fire full-auto (which is not really that hard to do).
I thought as much. Especially when old lady starts crying for them to be banned...
 
I believe (but have not other confirmation) that be mechanically modified the riffles to fire full-auto (which is not really that hard to do).

Back when the wrote the constitution, how many of those flintlock weapons could be converted to full auto? Maybe none.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top