Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A .69 caliber hole hurts less than .22 caliber hole.
Brilliant.
Did they have FIM-92 Stinger missiles back in those days that could take down airliners? Stinger missiles are a type of arm, do you think people should be allowed to have them?
Stinger missle is an explosive. Not in common usage.
A weapon, especially a firearm
Not taken away without good reason.
The Constitution said arms and the arms of those days weren't that powerful.
A .69 caliber hole hurts less than .22 caliber hole.
Brilliant.
Did they have FIM-92 Stinger missiles back in those days that could take down airliners? Stinger missiles are a type of arm, do you think people should be allowed to have them?
Nuclear arms are exposives, too. Every weapon is a type of arm.
A .69 caliber hole hurts less than .22 caliber hole.
Brilliant.
Did they have FIM-92 Stinger missiles back in those days that could take down airliners? Stinger missiles are a type of arm, do you think people should be allowed to have them?
How far are you going to move them goal posts young fella?
The Constitution said arms and the arms of those days weren't that powerful.
A .69 caliber hole hurts less than .22 caliber hole.
Brilliant.
Did they have FIM-92 Stinger missiles back in those days that could take down airliners? Stinger missiles are a type of arm, do you think people should be allowed to have them?
Since their intent was just to prevent the populace from being disarmed, it's the people who misinterpret that intent who are the problem. Unless you are going to allow the people to have all arms, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere. The Constitution didn't mention guns.
A .69 caliber hole hurts less than .22 caliber hole.
Brilliant.
Did they have FIM-92 Stinger missiles back in those days that could take down airliners? Stinger missiles are a type of arm, do you think people should be allowed to have them?
Dubya, YOU IGNORANT ASS, infringe means to break. As in breaking a trust that we all have the right to protect ourselves with arms. If you are defending yourself against a criminal, its probably a gun. If its against a government, probably a Stinger would come in pretty handy.
Your IGNORANCE abounds without limit. What an ASS.
<testing, 1,2,3 testing>
Since their intent was just to prevent the populace from being disarmed, it's the people who misinterpret that intent who are the problem. Unless you are going to allow the people to have all arms, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere. The Constitution didn't mention guns.
The Constitution didnt mention computer violent acts against women porn.
Lines drawn.
this is settled constitutional law folks.
There is NOT ONE scotus member who says gun laws are unconstitutional.
What does the word infringed mean?
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
Link: Search => [word] => Infringe :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com
1828 Dictionary, first published in the US.
So, to be taken literally, anyone - a drunk, drug addict, child abuser, wife abuser, felon, pyschotic paranoid schizophrenic, child, etc. etc. cannot have their right to own, possess, carry or control any arm or firearm, anywhere - loaded or not infringed.
Does anyone believe the founders believed this to be so?
Did they have FIM-92 Stinger missiles back in those days that could take down airliners? Stinger missiles are a type of arm, do you think people should be allowed to have them?
How far are you going to move them goal posts young fella?
I haven't moved the goal posts.
The Constitution said arms and they didn't think more powerful weapons in the future would be an issue, because they were reasonable men and figured the people in the future would also be reasonable.
Since their intent was just to prevent the populace from being disarmed, it's the people who misinterpret that intent who are the problem. Unless you are going to allow the people to have all arms, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere. The Constitution didn't mention guns.
Did they have FIM-92 Stinger missiles back in those days that could take down airliners? Stinger missiles are a type of arm, do you think people should be allowed to have them?
How far are you going to move them goal posts young fella?
I haven't moved the goal posts.
The Constitution said arms and they didn't think more powerful weapons in the future would be an issue, because they were reasonable men and figured the people in the future would also be reasonable.
Since their intent was just to prevent the populace from being disarmed, it's the people who misinterpret that intent who are the problem. Unless you are going to allow the people to have all arms, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere. The Constitution didn't mention guns.
How far are you going to move them goal posts young fella?
I haven't moved the goal posts.
The Constitution said arms and they didn't think more powerful weapons in the future would be an issue, because they were reasonable men and figured the people in the future would also be reasonable.
Since their intent was just to prevent the populace from being disarmed, it's the people who misinterpret that intent who are the problem. Unless you are going to allow the people to have all arms, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere. The Constitution didn't mention guns.
We already have the line, and the line is just fine. There is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens owning semi automatic rifles, semi auto pistols, and pump action shotguns. every law abiding citizen should have easy access to these weapons.
Using argumentum ad ridiculum and bringing in nukes and howitzers gets away from the real argument, and shows the weakness of the argument on the side of the gun grabbers.
Since their intent was just to prevent the populace from being disarmed, it's the people who misinterpret that intent who are the problem. Unless you are going to allow the people to have all arms, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere. The Constitution didn't mention guns.
The Constitution didnt mention computer violent acts against women porn.
Lines drawn.
That's how you people think and that's why normal people have no value in your opinions.
How far are you going to move them goal posts young fella?
I haven't moved the goal posts.
The Constitution said arms and they didn't think more powerful weapons in the future would be an issue, because they were reasonable men and figured the people in the future would also be reasonable.
Since their intent was just to prevent the populace from being disarmed, it's the people who misinterpret that intent who are the problem. Unless you are going to allow the people to have all arms, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere. The Constitution didn't mention guns.
Their intent was for the militia to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic. If the US Military was limited to muzzle loaders. we'd be communicating in German right now.
I can't afford a nuke, nor can all but a hand full of private people in this country, all of whom wouldn't dream of using one as an offensive weapon any more than my possession of a 30 round magazine makes me dream of shooting up a school room. We already restrict felons and crazies. Enforce THOSE laws, but keep your gun grabbing hands off my legal weapons. My autos included
No. the Constitution didn't mention guns. They didn't mention radio either, but no one got all up in Air America's face that radio allowed them too much freedom of speech.
I haven't moved the goal posts.
The Constitution said arms and they didn't think more powerful weapons in the future would be an issue, because they were reasonable men and figured the people in the future would also be reasonable.
Since their intent was just to prevent the populace from being disarmed, it's the people who misinterpret that intent who are the problem. Unless you are going to allow the people to have all arms, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere. The Constitution didn't mention guns.
We already have the line, and the line is just fine. There is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens owning semi automatic rifles, semi auto pistols, and pump action shotguns. every law abiding citizen should have easy access to these weapons.
Using argumentum ad ridiculum and bringing in nukes and howitzers gets away from the real argument, and shows the weakness of the argument on the side of the gun grabbers.
That is your position, but the fact is the Constitution didn't say gun, it said arms. You can try to make a false case that citizens didn't have cannon, but cannon weren't uncommon on mechant ships that citizens owned. Riverboats could also be equiped with cannon to repel attack.
The point about arms is the line has to be drawn somewhere and it's done for public safety. There is no absolute right for a person to own more advanced arms. There is only the right of the populace not to be disarmed. That was the intention of the 2nd Amendment.
If you make a case out of false information, it falls apart. The Founders of this country were rational people and I'm sure they never envisioned the 2nd Amendment would be treated like this. They just didn't want the populace disarmed.
I haven't moved the goal posts.
The Constitution said arms and they didn't think more powerful weapons in the future would be an issue, because they were reasonable men and figured the people in the future would also be reasonable.
Since their intent was just to prevent the populace from being disarmed, it's the people who misinterpret that intent who are the problem. Unless you are going to allow the people to have all arms, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere. The Constitution didn't mention guns.
Their intent was for the militia to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic. If the US Military was limited to muzzle loaders. we'd be communicating in German right now.
I can't afford a nuke, nor can all but a hand full of private people in this country, all of whom wouldn't dream of using one as an offensive weapon any more than my possession of a 30 round magazine makes me dream of shooting up a school room. We already restrict felons and crazies. Enforce THOSE laws, but keep your gun grabbing hands off my legal weapons. My autos included
No. the Constitution didn't mention guns. They didn't mention radio either, but no one got all up in Air America's face that radio allowed them too much freedom of speech.
Then you admit society does have a right to decide whether a citizen can have a particular arm. I believe society has that right, too, but I don't expect them to do it the way I would want it done.
Let me point out that I have supported limiting magazine size, but I haven't said I wanted a weapon banned, so "your gun grabbing hands" statement is made out of pure ignorance. Not knowing what you are talking about seems to be a rather common with you people. If you don't know something, why don't you just keep your fucking mouth shut?
The Constitution didnt mention computer violent acts against women porn.
Lines drawn.
That's how you people think and that's why normal people have no value in your opinions.
You people??? What people are you talking about?
And son, WE ARE the normal people. We know that felons and crazies shouldn't have guns and we know the meaning of the word "infringed"
You see normal people are capable of applying logic to apparent contradictions unlike "you people".
We already have the line, and the line is just fine. There is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens owning semi automatic rifles, semi auto pistols, and pump action shotguns. every law abiding citizen should have easy access to these weapons.
Using argumentum ad ridiculum and bringing in nukes and howitzers gets away from the real argument, and shows the weakness of the argument on the side of the gun grabbers.
That is your position, but the fact is the Constitution didn't say gun, it said arms. You can try to make a false case that citizens didn't have cannon, but cannon weren't uncommon on mechant ships that citizens owned. Riverboats could also be equiped with cannon to repel attack.
The point about arms is the line has to be drawn somewhere and it's done for public safety. There is no absolute right for a person to own more advanced arms. There is only the right of the populace not to be disarmed. That was the intention of the 2nd Amendment.
If you make a case out of false information, it falls apart. The Founders of this country were rational people and I'm sure they never envisioned the 2nd Amendment would be treated like this. They just didn't want the populace disarmed.
Did the merchant ships who owned cannon need permission from the government? I would say yes. It wasnt seen as an absolute right like the right to keep a firearm.
At the time the people were allowed the most advanced weapons availible. How is that construed as you thinking they wanted a limit on future weapons? They were already during a time of vast increases in technology, so they must have seen the writing on the wall.
