Both Sides of the Gun Debate Need to Listen to This

[alang1216]

What's an 'arm'?

If you are an American adult and don't know what the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is all about then no amount of words will be sufficient to educate you.

So you don't know either? Can you define an 'arm' or is it like pornography, you know it when you see it?

Yes I do. My 24 AR-15s are all "arms". So is my FAL, two MIAs, AR-10, M-1 Carbine, M-1 Garand and the other couple of dozen firearms I own. Looks like you are the one having a difficult time with it.

Can you provide a definition of 'arms'? You just gave me some examples so I'm thinking I'm right that an 'arm' is subjective and akin to pornography and so cannot be defined.

I know I'm wasting my time, and playing into your trolling game, but arms are weapons and ammunition; armaments.

Knives are weapons too but we both know an 'arm' fires ammunition of some kind. Does the 2nd amendment cover ALL arms? If it doesn't, why or why not?

 

[alang1216]

3. Gun control regulations infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

What's an 'arm'?

Is that covered by the 2nd?

 

[Weatherman2020]

The left have no motive for reason, just more gun grabbing.

They can’t state any laws, funding, or anything that would have prevented any of these shootings other than gun grabbing from law abiding citizens.

 

[alang1216]

3. Gun control regulations infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

What's an 'arm'?

If you are an American adult and don't know what the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is all about then no amount of words will be sufficient to educate you.

So you don't know either? Can you define an 'arm' or is it like pornography, you know it when you see it?

I will let Justice Scalia explain it to you...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

b. “Keep and bear Arms.”

We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”).

Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1

J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

So the 2nd should be interpreted, according to Scalia, as making ownership of fully automatic weapons and handheld rockets (rpgs) a right?

 

[alang1216]

The left have no motive for reason, just more gun grabbing.

The same argument can be made about licensing cars and drivers.

 

[miketx]

3. Gun control regulations infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

What's an 'arm'?

Is that covered by the 2nd?

Of course it is.

 

[skookerasbil]

Really the debate is nothing more than an internet hobby.

The left gets all amped up every time there's a march or two, but let's call a spade a spade.... nothing ever happens after that.

 

[Flash]

3. Gun control regulations infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

What's an 'arm'?

If you are an American adult and don't know what the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is all about then no amount of words will be sufficient to educate you.

So you don't know either? Can you define an 'arm' or is it like pornography, you know it when you see it?

I will let Justice Scalia explain it to you...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

b. “Keep and bear Arms.”

We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”).

Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1

J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

These Libtards don't want to hear that so they ignore it.

Just like they ignore the fact that the right to keep and bear arms has been declared by the Supreme Court as an individual right and not restricted to some state regulated militia.

Liberals are always in denial about facts.

 

[alang1216]

These Libtards don't want to hear that so they ignore it.

Just like they ignore the fact that the right to keep and bear arms has been declared by the Supreme Court as an individual right and not restricted to some state regulated militia.

Liberals are always in denial about facts.

You should tell the anti-abortion folk that the SCOTUS has spoken and the debate is over. Conservatives are always in denial about facts.

 

[Skull Pilot]

3. Gun control regulations infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

What's an 'arm'?

If you are an American adult and don't know what the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is all about then no amount of words will be sufficient to educate you.

So you don't know either? Can you define an 'arm' or is it like pornography, you know it when you see it?

so you don't know how to use a dictionary huh?

arms | Definition of arms in English by Oxford Dictionaries

 

[Flash]

These Libtards don't want to hear that so they ignore it.

Just like they ignore the fact that the right to keep and bear arms has been declared by the Supreme Court as an individual right and not restricted to some state regulated militia.

Liberals are always in denial about facts.

You should tell the anti-abortion folk that the SCOTUS has spoken and the debate is over. Conservatives are always in denial about facts.

Yes we know you filthy ass Libtards have the right to kill the children. Gloat over it Moon Bat.

 

[alang1216]

3. Gun control regulations infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

What's an 'arm'?

If you are an American adult and don't know what the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is all about then no amount of words will be sufficient to educate you.

So you don't know either? Can you define an 'arm' or is it like pornography, you know it when you see it?

so you don't know how to use a dictionary huh?

arms | Definition of arms in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Kind of a squishy definition. Swords are arms. Does the 2nd give us the right to bear every possible kind of arm or only a limited subset?

 

[alang1216]

Yes we know you filthy ass Libtards have the right to kill the children. Gloat over it Moon Bat.

I guarantee I like abortions a lot less than you like guns.

The good news on abortions is there were 25% fewer today than in 2000 while gun deaths are up slightly over the same time period. Still too many of each.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The left have no motive for reason, just more gun grabbing.

The same argument can be made about licensing cars and drivers.

Say what? Someone saying driving license laws need to be changed?

 

[Weatherman2020]

These Libtards don't want to hear that so they ignore it.

Just like they ignore the fact that the right to keep and bear arms has been declared by the Supreme Court as an individual right and not restricted to some state regulated militia.

Liberals are always in denial about facts.

You should tell the anti-abortion folk that the SCOTUS has spoken and the debate is over. Conservatives are always in denial about facts.

You should tell the anti-abortion folk that the SCOTUS has spoken and the debate is over. Conservatives are always in denial about facts.

Spoke to Dred Scott too, doesn’t make it right or permanent.

 

[alang1216]

The left have no motive for reason, just more gun grabbing.

The same argument can be made about licensing cars and drivers.

Say what? Someone saying driving license laws need to be changed?

No but why register cars unless we want to take them away from their owners?

 

[Pop23]

3. Gun control regulations infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

What's an 'arm'?

If you are an American adult and don't know what the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is all about then no amount of words will be sufficient to educate you.

So you don't know either? Can you define an 'arm' or is it like pornography, you know it when you see it?

I will let Justice Scalia explain it to you...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

b. “Keep and bear Arms.”

We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”).

Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1

J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

So the 2nd should be interpreted, according to Scalia, as making ownership of fully automatic weapons and handheld rockets (rpgs) a right?

If my daughter needs an RPG from a dude with a tank that want's to rape her. For some damn reason, I'm good with that!

 

[Pop23]

The left have no motive for reason, just more gun grabbing.

The same argument can be made about licensing cars and drivers.

Say what? Someone saying driving license laws need to be changed?

No but why register cars unless we want to take them away from their owners?

Cars are not required to be registered to be purchased.

 

[alang1216]

The left have no motive for reason, just more gun grabbing.

The same argument can be made about licensing cars and drivers.

Say what? Someone saying driving license laws need to be changed?

No but why register cars unless we want to take them away from their owners?

Cars are not required to be registered to be purchased.

OK but not an answer to the question.

 

[Pop23]

The left have no motive for reason, just more gun grabbing.

The same argument can be made about licensing cars and drivers.

Say what? Someone saying driving license laws need to be changed?

No but why register cars unless we want to take them away from their owners?

Cars are not required to be registered to be purchased.

OK but not an answer to the question.

You register a car for several reasons, but most have to be about using one on a TAX PAYER FUNDED ROADWAY.

I see what you're doing though, and it won't work, but go ahead and try, it's what people like you do.