How does the 2nd amendment apply to weaponized drones?

Do you mean by that that I'm lying and that M14 didn't say it? This is the Internet and what's said on the Internet stays on the Internet - unless or until some mod deletes it but what he said, to my best knowledge, hasn't be deleted. Give me a couple of minutes and I'll post what was said and if you still say I'm lying, well that would be a lie on your part.
Gosh you are boring
 
I'm not reading your garbage because you lack the experience and knowledge. You found this really Kool book that makes you believe what you're talking about.

It's real simple. Either you do believe the government can strip a felon's right to keep and bear arms as long as they get a trial or you believe that people can be sold to slavery as long as they get a court hearing. Which is it?

I thought you were arguing against people being sold into slavery and limits on the 13th Amendment but now it appears that you actually do believe what M14 Shooter says and that ANY right, even the right to not be a slave, can be taken by court order.

Again, which is it? Any rights can be stripped or no rights can be stripped?
 
Well the second amendment is part of the bill of rights. I was expanding and went with all of the bill of rights in search of that word allow.
You understand that the 13th Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights, right?

This is what happens when people, right or left, talk about and pretend to quote the Constitution when they've never actually studied it.
 
You understand that the 13th Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights, right?

This is what happens when people, right or left, talk about and pretend to quote the Constitution when they've never actually studied it.
Bless your heart it's an amendment that says no one can. Be forced into slavery. As a Leo education in Constitutional law is a requirement before you can be a certified Leo.
 
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you need me to explain to you?
Do I need to explain the definition of "arms". It is all weapons of war. Not just guns. You 2nd amendment rights have been infringed on because there are very few weapons of war you can buy. The USA has modified the arms you can buy as technology has brought out more deadly weaponry.
 
Do I need to explain the definition of "arms". It is all weapons of war. Not just guns. You 2nd amendment rights have been infringed on because there are very few weapons of war you can buy. The USA has modified the arms you can buy as technology has brought out more deadly weaponry.
I know you can buy a tank. Good luck with the ammo though. With the price of fuel, fogetaboutit.
 
Do I need to explain the definition of "arms". It is all weapons of war. Not just guns. You 2nd amendment rights have been infringed on because there are very few weapons of war you can buy. The USA has modified the arms you can buy as technology has brought out more deadly weaponry.
Firearms are weapons gun are for fucking
Which means my right to keep and carry a firearm can never be stopped
 
So the 13 amendment can be abridged for various reasons? How about the 19th amendment? How about the 15th amendment? You don't get a fair trial you don't get a right to representation.
According to the SC, 2A given the Tenth, e.g., in reference to the mentally ill and felons.
 
Do I need to explain the definition of "arms". It is all weapons of war. Not just guns. You 2nd amendment rights have been infringed on because there are very few weapons of war you can buy. The USA has modified the arms you can buy as technology has brought out more deadly weaponry.
The government restricts what we can buy, but that's also against the 2nd.
 
The government restricts what we can buy, but that's also against the 2nd.
That is my point. You say the government cannot infringe on the rights spelled out in the 2nd amendment, but they already have. The precedence has been set.
Laws can be set on previous legal precedence.
 
That is my point. You say the government cannot infringe on the rights spelled out in the 2nd amendment, but they already have. The precedence has been set.
Laws can be set on previous legal precedence.
As weapons advance it was expected that the citizens would have access to them
 
That is my point. You say the government cannot infringe on the rights spelled out in the 2nd amendment, but they already have. The precedence has been set.
Laws can be set on previous legal precedence.
You can't violate the Constitution then use that as a precedent. That's dumber than dirt. Anyways, after Roe being turned over, precedents don't matter.
 

Forum List

Back
Top