Republicans in Panic?

[Skylar]

But is it? Mortars would be more artillery. But grenades are hand thrown. A rifle is more artillery than a grenade is. Artillery is just large calibur guns. And a grenade isn't part of a gun. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment you're offering is the standard equipment of an infrantry man.

Grenades are pretty standard.

As are automatic weapons. SAW machine guns. Grenade launchers. Anti-personnel mines.

The constitution never says that it only protects those rights explicitly in the document. And I defy you to show me where in the constitution that passage is located. You'll find you imagined it.

On the contrary, the 9th amendment is quite clear that enumeration in the constitution is NOT a requirement for a right to exist.

And of course you already know this. You've read the 9th amendment. Making your 'only those explicitly in the document' nonsense all the more bizarre. As nothing in the constitution or constitutional convention backs your narrative. And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts it.

Meaning you're wrong twice. The constitution is not, never was, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights as you claim. Its an exhaustive list of powers.

The 9th amendment makes it clear that there are unenumerated rights held by the people. These rights, like any enumerated in the constitution, would limit government action. And the judiciary is cited by the Federalist Paper as the body to interpret the constitution. And decide when a given law violates it.

Far from 'laughable', defining the limits of government power under the constitution is the role and sacred duty of the government. You favor government power over rights....if that government is the State.

And as the 14th amendment makes clear, the State doesn't have the authority to violate the privileges or immunities of Federal citizens. Which every American is.

As I said, you don't favor liberty over government coersion....if that government is the State. You actively favor such coersino

A grenade is not an arm, stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about when it comes to weapons ( a hint, you don't).

A grenade isn't an arm....according to who? You do realize that merely typing the words 'a grenade is not an arm' doesn't actually factually establish the assertion. Stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.

And artillery is a large calibur gun. Says who? Says the dictionary:

Artillery:

1
: weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2
a : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance

b : a branch of an army armed with artillery
Definition of ARTILLERY

A grenade doesn't launch a missile. Nor is it a large bore fire arm. As I said, a rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade is. But don't tell us......you know more than the dictionary?

And of course, what about machine guns? Automatic weapons? Missile launchers? These are all standard ground infrantry weapons. State of the art.

The 9th does not say the constitution has to protect it, just that they can exist. You really don't see the danger in letting a small group of people create "rights", do you? How naive.

You don't seem to get what a right is. A right is a limit to government action. You're insisting that the government doesn't have to be limited to limits to government action. You're literally arguing, with no exaggeration, that the government isn't required to recognize, be limited by, or abide rights of the people.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

The government cannot violate the rights of the people. And *no where* in the constitution does it state that a right must be in the document to be protected. You literally hallucinated that whole. It doesn't exist. And for the third time, I defy you to show me anywhere in the constitution this 'enumeration requirement' is articulated for rights.

You can't. You made it up.

Using argumentum ad absurdum to say I can't have a 9mm handgun is just that, absurd.

And when did I say you can't have a 9mm handgun? Can you quote me saying that? Or did you just offer up a silly, stupid little strawman to prop up a failed argument?

Quote me saying you can't have a 9mm pistol.......or admit that your 'argumentum ad adsurdum' was just more ignorant noise, and a hopeless strawman.

Its one or the other. Pick one.

I asked you what about automatic weapons? Light machine guns? Grenades? Missile launchers? All standard, start of the art issue for the infantryman. Grenades are not 'like artillery', as they aren't large bore guns or launchers of missiles.

and since a grenade explodes, it really isn't an arm, it's an explosive.

Says who? You already demonstrated you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about with your 'grenades are artillery' nonsense. Why then would I accept you citing yourself as having any relevance to this conversation?

A protected right is a right government cannot interfere with, without an explicit, compelling government interest, and then only in the most limited way possible. It's why felons can be banned from owning guns, but telling me I can't have a 9mm "just because" is unconstitutional.

And for the 5th time, where does the constitution say that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution in order to be protected?

Show me. Don't tell me.

You can't. The constitution includes no such requirement, no such restriction on rights. You made that up, citing yourself. And you citing yourself is not the constitution. You making up imaginary restrictions on rights is not the constitution.

The 9th amendment? That's the constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th amendment of the constitution of the United States

And it destroys your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. Rights are limits to government actions. And the constitution draws *no* distinction between enumerated rights and unemuerated rights in terms of their restrictions on government action.

You've imagined it. And your imagination isn't the constitution either.

The argument about being able to regulate machine guns always descends into semi automatics, and scary looking rifles. I don't have to show anything, its where the grabbers always end up.

Except that it didn't. I never mentioned any of your 9mm nonsense. I never made the argument you attributed to me. So the argument you were knocking down....was your own. As you're the only one making it. We call that a 'Strawman'.

And you never did answer my questions. Since we've established that grenades aren't 'like artillery', why not grenades? Why not full auto rifles? Why not SAW light machine guns? Why not missile launchers?

These are all standard issue and state of the art for infantry men.

 

[Valerie]

aww the shameless GOP would like you to believe it's debate moderators who should be ashamed...

bigot feelings got hurt that day...

GOP Debate: RNC Chair Preibus Says CNBC Moderators 'Should Be Ashamed' - Fortune

 

[martybegan]

A grenade is not an arm, stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about when it comes to weapons ( a hint, you don't).

A grenade isn't an arm....according to who? You do realize that merely typing the words 'a grenade is not an arm' doesn't actually factually establish the assertion. Stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.

And artillery is a large calibur gun. Says who? Says the dictionary:

Artillery:

1
: weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2
a : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance

b : a branch of an army armed with artillery
Definition of ARTILLERY

A grenade doesn't launch a missile. Nor is it a large bore fire arm. As I said, a rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade is. But don't tell us......you know more than the dictionary?

And of course, what about machine guns? Automatic weapons? Missile launchers? These are all standard ground infrantry weapons. State of the art.

The 9th does not say the constitution has to protect it, just that they can exist. You really don't see the danger in letting a small group of people create "rights", do you? How naive.

You don't seem to get what a right is. A right is a limit to government action. You're insisting that the government doesn't have to be limited to limits to government action. You're literally arguing, with no exaggeration, that the government isn't required to recognize, be limited by, or abide rights of the people.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

The government cannot violate the rights of the people. And *no where* in the constitution does it state that a right must be in the document to be protected. You literally hallucinated that whole. It doesn't exist. And for the third time, I defy you to show me anywhere in the constitution this 'enumeration requirement' is articulated for rights.

You can't. You made it up.

Using argumentum ad absurdum to say I can't have a 9mm handgun is just that, absurd.

And when did I say you can't have a 9mm handgun? Can you quote me saying that? Or did you just offer up a silly, stupid little strawman to prop up a failed argument?

Quote me saying you can't have a 9mm pistol.......or admit that your 'argumentum ad adsurdum' was just more ignorant noise, and a hopeless strawman.

Its one or the other. Pick one.

I asked you what about automatic weapons? Light machine guns? Grenades? Missile launchers? All standard, start of the art issue for the infantryman. Grenades are not 'like artillery', as they aren't large bore guns or launchers of missiles.

and since a grenade explodes, it really isn't an arm, it's an explosive.

Says who? You already demonstrated you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about with your 'grenades are artillery' nonsense. Why then would I accept you citing yourself as having any relevance to this conversation?

A protected right is a right government cannot interfere with, without an explicit, compelling government interest, and then only in the most limited way possible. It's why felons can be banned from owning guns, but telling me I can't have a 9mm "just because" is unconstitutional.

And for the 5th time, where does the constitution say that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution in order to be protected?

Show me. Don't tell me.

You can't. The constitution includes no such requirement, no such restriction on rights. You made that up, citing yourself. And you citing yourself is not the constitution. You making up imaginary restrictions on rights is not the constitution.

The 9th amendment? That's the constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th amendment of the constitution of the United States

And it destroys your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. Rights are limits to government actions. And the constitution draws *no* distinction between enumerated rights and unemuerated rights in terms of their restrictions on government action.

You've imagined it. And your imagination isn't the constitution either.

The argument about being able to regulate machine guns always descends into semi automatics, and scary looking rifles. I don't have to show anything, its where the grabbers always end up.

Except that it didn't. I never mentioned any of your 9mm nonsense. I never made the argument you attributed to me. So the argument you were knocking down....was your own. As you're the only one making it. We call that a 'Strawman'.

And you never did answer my questions. Since we've established that grenades aren't 'like artillery', why not grenades? Why not full auto rifles? Why not SAW light machine guns? Why not missile launchers?

These are all standard issue and state of the art for infantry men.

Yes, they are "like artillery", personal artillery, and an explosive device, not an arm.

The whole "big bad weapons" argument is the real strawman.

Why should I be denied concealed carry of a 9mm handgun?

 

[Skylar]

A grenade isn't an arm....according to who? You do realize that merely typing the words 'a grenade is not an arm' doesn't actually factually establish the assertion. Stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.

And artillery is a large calibur gun. Says who? Says the dictionary:

A grenade doesn't launch a missile. Nor is it a large bore fire arm. As I said, a rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade is. But don't tell us......you know more than the dictionary?

And of course, what about machine guns? Automatic weapons? Missile launchers? These are all standard ground infrantry weapons. State of the art.

You don't seem to get what a right is. A right is a limit to government action. You're insisting that the government doesn't have to be limited to limits to government action. You're literally arguing, with no exaggeration, that the government isn't required to recognize, be limited by, or abide rights of the people.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

The government cannot violate the rights of the people. And *no where* in the constitution does it state that a right must be in the document to be protected. You literally hallucinated that whole. It doesn't exist. And for the third time, I defy you to show me anywhere in the constitution this 'enumeration requirement' is articulated for rights.

You can't. You made it up.

Using argumentum ad absurdum to say I can't have a 9mm handgun is just that, absurd.

And when did I say you can't have a 9mm handgun? Can you quote me saying that? Or did you just offer up a silly, stupid little strawman to prop up a failed argument?

Quote me saying you can't have a 9mm pistol.......or admit that your 'argumentum ad adsurdum' was just more ignorant noise, and a hopeless strawman.

Its one or the other. Pick one.

I asked you what about automatic weapons? Light machine guns? Grenades? Missile launchers? All standard, start of the art issue for the infantryman. Grenades are not 'like artillery', as they aren't large bore guns or launchers of missiles.

and since a grenade explodes, it really isn't an arm, it's an explosive.

Says who? You already demonstrated you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about with your 'grenades are artillery' nonsense. Why then would I accept you citing yourself as having any relevance to this conversation?

A protected right is a right government cannot interfere with, without an explicit, compelling government interest, and then only in the most limited way possible. It's why felons can be banned from owning guns, but telling me I can't have a 9mm "just because" is unconstitutional.

And for the 5th time, where does the constitution say that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution in order to be protected?

Show me. Don't tell me.

You can't. The constitution includes no such requirement, no such restriction on rights. You made that up, citing yourself. And you citing yourself is not the constitution. You making up imaginary restrictions on rights is not the constitution.

The 9th amendment? That's the constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th amendment of the constitution of the United States

And it destroys your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. Rights are limits to government actions. And the constitution draws *no* distinction between enumerated rights and unemuerated rights in terms of their restrictions on government action.

You've imagined it. And your imagination isn't the constitution either.

The argument about being able to regulate machine guns always descends into semi automatics, and scary looking rifles. I don't have to show anything, its where the grabbers always end up.

Except that it didn't. I never mentioned any of your 9mm nonsense. I never made the argument you attributed to me. So the argument you were knocking down....was your own. As you're the only one making it. We call that a 'Strawman'.

And you never did answer my questions. Since we've established that grenades aren't 'like artillery', why not grenades? Why not full auto rifles? Why not SAW light machine guns? Why not missile launchers?

These are all standard issue and state of the art for infantry men.

Yes, they are "like artillery", personal artillery, and an explosive device, not an arm.

Artillery are missile launchers like ballista or trebuchet. Or large bore guns. Neither of which fits a grenade. As I said, a rifle is far more like Artillery than a grenade is. So why not grenades? Simply 'declaring' that they aren't arms is the Begging the Question fallacy. You'll have to factually establish it. And you can't.

The Arms Trade Treaty of which the US is a signatory includes grenades, missile launchers, machine guns and the like as arms. The Arms Export Control Act defines arms as all of the above....plus howitzers, planes, tanks and the like.

By both international law and domestic law, arms include grenades, machine guns, missile launchers, automatic rifles. And far, far more. So who are you quoting when you insist that grenades and the like aren't 'arms'? Yourself, apparently....contradicted by US law.

And for the 9th time, what about automatic rifles. What about SAW light machine guns? What about anti-personnel mines? What about missile launchers.

The whole "big bad weapons" argument is the real strawman.

Why should I be denied concealed carry of a 9mm handgun?

Strawman. I haven't made that argument. I've asked you questions you refuse to answer, despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating that you're wrong in your assumptions.

 

[bendog]

seems the party is concerned that the "base" is taking over the asylum

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.


*snip*

According to other Republicans, some in the party establishment are so desperate to change the dynamic that they are talking anew about drafting Romney — despite his insistence that he will not run again. Friends have mapped out a strategy for a late entry to pick up delegates and vie for the nomination in a convention fight, according to the Republicans who were briefed on the talks, though Romney has shown no indication of reviving his interest.

For months, the GOP professional class assumed Trump and Carson would fizzle with time. Voters would get serious, the thinking went, after seeing the outsiders share a stage with more experienced politicians at the first debate. Or when summer turned to fall, kids went back to school and parents had time to assess the candidates. Or after the second, third or fourth debates, certainly

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.

I do not think Trump or Carson will be the nominee.

I think pressure will come to bear on Graham, Kasich, Carly, Jeb, and Christie to get out fast, unless they do well in Iowa, NH or SC. Jeb might want to keep on in Fla, then there's Nev, Colo, MO and Minn all on the same day or within the same week. He seems a misery magnet, but unless he's a Cleveland Browns fan, his humiliation should be complete by then. Of course, if he beat Rubio in Fla .... all hell breaks loose, but I don't think he will be Rubio.

The Huckster and Cruz and Paul are immune to national pressure, but Paul looks to be running out of other people's money already, and the Huckster should fall aside too.

Trump tops out at 30% maybe higher. Carson lately has actually lost RR support to Cruz. But, combining all that you don't really have 50%, and Carson can stay in this thing. So, somebody will emerge who can take a small majority or even a plurality against Trump and Carson.

 

[Uncensored2008]

seems the party is concerned that the "base" is taking over the asylum

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.


*snip*

According to other Republicans, some in the party establishment are so desperate to change the dynamic that they are talking anew about drafting Romney — despite his insistence that he will not run again. Friends have mapped out a strategy for a late entry to pick up delegates and vie for the nomination in a convention fight, according to the Republicans who were briefed on the talks, though Romney has shown no indication of reviving his interest.

For months, the GOP professional class assumed Trump and Carson would fizzle with time. Voters would get serious, the thinking went, after seeing the outsiders share a stage with more experienced politicians at the first debate. Or when summer turned to fall, kids went back to school and parents had time to assess the candidates. Or after the second, third or fourth debates, certainly

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.

You moron commies are finally figuring this out?



Remember Comrade - YOU put Trump in office, it was YOUR idiocy in pushing the far - far left and the utter insanity of democratic - socialist coddling of radical Islam that paved the way.

 

[martybegan]

Using argumentum ad absurdum to say I can't have a 9mm handgun is just that, absurd.

And when did I say you can't have a 9mm handgun? Can you quote me saying that? Or did you just offer up a silly, stupid little strawman to prop up a failed argument?

Quote me saying you can't have a 9mm pistol.......or admit that your 'argumentum ad adsurdum' was just more ignorant noise, and a hopeless strawman.

Its one or the other. Pick one.

I asked you what about automatic weapons? Light machine guns? Grenades? Missile launchers? All standard, start of the art issue for the infantryman. Grenades are not 'like artillery', as they aren't large bore guns or launchers of missiles.

and since a grenade explodes, it really isn't an arm, it's an explosive.

Says who? You already demonstrated you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about with your 'grenades are artillery' nonsense. Why then would I accept you citing yourself as having any relevance to this conversation?

A protected right is a right government cannot interfere with, without an explicit, compelling government interest, and then only in the most limited way possible. It's why felons can be banned from owning guns, but telling me I can't have a 9mm "just because" is unconstitutional.

And for the 5th time, where does the constitution say that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution in order to be protected?

Show me. Don't tell me.

You can't. The constitution includes no such requirement, no such restriction on rights. You made that up, citing yourself. And you citing yourself is not the constitution. You making up imaginary restrictions on rights is not the constitution.

The 9th amendment? That's the constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th amendment of the constitution of the United States

And it destroys your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. Rights are limits to government actions. And the constitution draws *no* distinction between enumerated rights and unemuerated rights in terms of their restrictions on government action.

You've imagined it. And your imagination isn't the constitution either.

The argument about being able to regulate machine guns always descends into semi automatics, and scary looking rifles. I don't have to show anything, its where the grabbers always end up.

Except that it didn't. I never mentioned any of your 9mm nonsense. I never made the argument you attributed to me. So the argument you were knocking down....was your own. As you're the only one making it. We call that a 'Strawman'.

And you never did answer my questions. Since we've established that grenades aren't 'like artillery', why not grenades? Why not full auto rifles? Why not SAW light machine guns? Why not missile launchers?

These are all standard issue and state of the art for infantry men.

Yes, they are "like artillery", personal artillery, and an explosive device, not an arm.

Artillery are missile launchers like ballista or trebuchet. Or large bore guns. Neither of which fits a grenade. As I said, a rifle is far more like Artillery than a grenade is. So why not grenades? Simply 'declaring' that they aren't arms is the Begging the Question fallacy. You'll have to factually establish it. And you can't.

The Arms Trade Treaty of which the US is a signatory includes grenades, missile launchers, machine guns and the like as arms. The Arms Export Control Act defines arms as all of the above....plus howitzers, planes, tanks and the like.

By both international law and domestic law, arms include grenades, machine guns, missile launchers, automatic rifles. And far, far more. So who are you quoting when you insist that grenades and the like aren't 'arms'? Yourself, apparently....contradicted by US law.

And for the 9th time, what about automatic rifles. What about SAW light machine guns? What about anti-personnel mines? What about missile launchers.

The whole "big bad weapons" argument is the real strawman.

Why should I be denied concealed carry of a 9mm handgun?

Strawman. I haven't made that argument. I've asked you questions you refuse to answer, despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating that you're wrong in your assumptions.

A grenade is not an "arm" as envisioned in the constitution, stop getting hung up on grenades.
Its an explosive, which was the realm of artillery.

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

There has to be a compelling government interest in squelching a right, besides a surface to air missile not being a real arm, the governments interest in limiting ownership outweighs the desire of a person to own one.

And a rifle is not, and has never been artillery. Stick to talking about fucking people over about cakes, its your area of expertise.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If Republicans allow George Soros to choose their candidate as well as The Democrat Party candidate then, yeah, America loses.

Again.

But Jeb is done, so Soros (and Hillary) lost,

It makes me sad, but Trump will be president.

 

[Uncensored2008]

aww the shameless GOP would like you to believe it's debate moderators who should be ashamed...

bigot feelings got hurt that day...

GOP Debate: RNC Chair Preibus Says CNBC Moderators 'Should Be Ashamed' - Fortune

So you think the the left came out on top of that, ValeRati?



I admit, I'm having fun laughing at you delusional fools spewing your insane hackery. But the sobering part is that you morons have pushed Donald Trump into the presidency with your fucktardedness.

And that isn't going to end well.

 

[Valerie]

...it isn’t just the virtually unanimous Republican decision to obey the NRA rather than public opinion in issues like the gun show loophole that’s polarizing the debate and driving liberals to distraction. It’s been the steady drift of conservatives towards radical conceptions of the Second Amendment that make any discussion of “compromise” on gun regulation impossible.

...these radical conceptions are becoming especially alarming in view of the widespread conservative conviction that standard-brand liberalism represents some sort of conspiracy to impose tyranny on the American people.

It’s this latter factor that elevates the theory that the Founders designed the Second Amendment to facilitate precisely the same kind of armed revolution that they undertook from an abstract historical argument to something very scary.

When Ben Carson says he’s now convinced armed resistance to “tyranny” is the purpose of the Second Amendment, it’s kind of worth noting that the man believes we are imminently threatened by “tyranny” if Alinskyites like Obama and Hillary Clinton are allowed to serve in high national office?

If that is indeed what the Second Amendment means—and at the very least Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz share Carson’s position—then who gets to decide when it’s time to start shooting cops and members of the armed forces (because that’s what this means, much as right-to-revolution advocates want to keep it at the level of an abstract “government”)?

People who think Obamacare is “slavery?” or that progressive taxation is “looting?” or that we are at a “tipping point” where those people will soon extinguish private property rights? How about people who think America is like Nazi Germany (again, a comparison Ben Carson is constantly inviting) where millions of babies are being slaughtered? Do they get to decide when armed revolution is appropriate or necessary?

I ask these questions because there’s no doubt in my mind that the emotional underpinning of the right-to-revolution understanding of the Second Amendment is to present an ongoing threat to those of us in the other political camp that there’s only so much of this godless liberalism that good righteous people can be expected to tolerate.

The Second Amendment As Creating a Right to Armed Revolution

 

[Skylar]

A grenade is not an "arm" as envisioned in the constitution, stop getting hung up on grenades.

Says who? The Founders didn't 'envision' an automatic rifle either. Or a semi-automatic pistol. If we go by arms as 'envisioned' by the Founders, we'd be limited to black powder weapons.

Its an explosive, which was the realm of artillery.

Save that artillery is a large bore gun or a missle launcher. Says who? Says the dictionary:

1
: weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2
a : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance

b : a branch of an army armed with artillery
artillery | large guns that are used to shoot over a great distance

So you clearly don't know what you're talking about. A rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade. As a rifle is actually a firearm and a discharger of missiles. A grenade is neither. So why not a grenade?

And who says that artillery isn't 'arms'. Not the US. We include artillery in our definition of 'arms' in the Arms Export Control Act. They're also included in as arms in the Arms Trade Treaty, of which we're a signatory.

So why not artillery too?

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

So you believe the 2nd amendment includes automatic weapons, light machine guns and the like. It only took 9 recitations to get you to finally answer the question.

How about rocket launchers? Tanks? Airplanes? These are all categorized as 'arms' per US law.

There has to be a compelling government interest in squelching a right, besides a surface to air missile not being a real arm, the governments interest in limiting ownership outweighs the desire of a person to own one.

How about a bazooka then, or its wire guided equivilant for today?

And a rifle is not, and has never been artillery. Stick to talking about fucking people over about cakes, its your area of expertise.

Show us where the word 'arms' doesn't include artillery. As you've never quoted any source but yourself.

 

[Valerie]

...pushed Donald Trump into the presidency...

dream on, angry loon...

 

[Uncensored2008]

dream on, angry loon...

LOL

The left is in a panic, full on meltdown.

It's not only Trump who beats the crook Hilliary in head to head polls, it's virtually ANYONE (except Jeb.)

I'm going to laugh at you morons for the next year, as your panic drives you to lash out.

Unfortunately after that, I'll have to live with that idiot Trump in the White House.

 

[martybegan]

A grenade is not an "arm" as envisioned in the constitution, stop getting hung up on grenades.

Says who? The Founders didn't 'envision' an automatic rifle either. Or a semi-automatic pistol. If we go by arms as 'envisioned' by the Founders, we'd be limited to black powder weapons.

Its an explosive, which was the realm of artillery.

Save that artillery is a large bore gun or a missle launcher. Says who? Says the dictionary:

1
: weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2
a : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance

b : a branch of an army armed with artillery
artillery | large guns that are used to shoot over a great distance

So you clearly don't know what you're talking about. A rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade. As a rifle is actually a firearm and a discharger of missiles. A grenade is neither. So why not a grenade?

And who says that artillery isn't 'arms'. Not the US. We include artillery in our definition of 'arms' in the Arms Export Control Act. They're also included in as arms in the Arms Trade Treaty, of which we're a signatory.

So why not artillery too?

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

So you believe the 2nd amendment includes automatic weapons, light machine guns and the like. It only took 9 recitations to get you to finally answer the question.

How about rocket launchers? Tanks? Airplanes? These are all categorized as 'arms' per US law.

There has to be a compelling government interest in squelching a right, besides a surface to air missile not being a real arm, the governments interest in limiting ownership outweighs the desire of a person to own one.

How about a bazooka then, or its wire guided equivilant for today?

And a rifle is not, and has never been artillery. Stick to talking about fucking people over about cakes, its your area of expertise.

Show us where the word 'arms' doesn't include artillery. As you've never quoted any source but yourself.

No. it. Isn't. When the militia mustered, people showed up with their muskets and maybe a pistol, some showed up with knives or swords or even pikes. grenades were the realm of grenadiers and sappers, not your common line infantry.

All you are trying to do here is make me set a "line" and somehow ruin my views on strict construction. as Wry Catcher has figured out (and if you are slower than Wry Catcher, yeesh) Strict construction is not literal construction. There is room for interpretation,. What there is not room for is making crap up.

So go take your supposed "trap" and cram it.

 

[Valerie]

good luck with that..and please remember cain is able!

 

[Wry Catcher]

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

Gee, you sure can echo the bullshit, always sans evidence.

What you can't grasp is this concept, It it's broke, fix it or throw it out. The Second is broken, too many innocents die due to too many guns in play.

 

[Skylar]

A grenade is not an "arm" as envisioned in the constitution, stop getting hung up on grenades.

Says who? The Founders didn't 'envision' an automatic rifle either. Or a semi-automatic pistol. If we go by arms as 'envisioned' by the Founders, we'd be limited to black powder weapons.

Its an explosive, which was the realm of artillery.

Save that artillery is a large bore gun or a missle launcher. Says who? Says the dictionary:

1
: weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2
a : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance

b : a branch of an army armed with artillery
artillery | large guns that are used to shoot over a great distance

So you clearly don't know what you're talking about. A rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade. As a rifle is actually a firearm and a discharger of missiles. A grenade is neither. So why not a grenade?

And who says that artillery isn't 'arms'. Not the US. We include artillery in our definition of 'arms' in the Arms Export Control Act. They're also included in as arms in the Arms Trade Treaty, of which we're a signatory.

So why not artillery too?

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

So you believe the 2nd amendment includes automatic weapons, light machine guns and the like. It only took 9 recitations to get you to finally answer the question.

How about rocket launchers? Tanks? Airplanes? These are all categorized as 'arms' per US law.

There has to be a compelling government interest in squelching a right, besides a surface to air missile not being a real arm, the governments interest in limiting ownership outweighs the desire of a person to own one.

How about a bazooka then, or its wire guided equivilant for today?

And a rifle is not, and has never been artillery. Stick to talking about fucking people over about cakes, its your area of expertise.

Show us where the word 'arms' doesn't include artillery. As you've never quoted any source but yourself.

No. it. Isn't. When the militia mustered, people showed up with their muskets and maybe a pistol, some showed up with knives or swords or even pikes. grenades were the realm of grenadiers and sappers, not your common line infantry.

Neither grenadiers nor sappers were 'artillery'. So we can put that 'artillery' argument to bed.

And while grenades might not have been standard issue for a soldier in the Founder's era, neither were cartridge ammunition, semi automatic fire arms, or full metal jackets.

They're standard issue today.

So do we use the founder's standards, with no grenades, black powder weapons and muskets? Or do we use today's standards of automatic weapons, grenades, anti-personnel mines, tracers and rocket launchers?

Likewise, US law recognizes tanks, artillery, war planes, laser guided bombs, and the like as 'arms'. So why would you exclude them from your definition? Again, if we're going to go with the founder's 'vision', then we'd have black powder weapons.

All you are trying to do here is make me set a "line" and somehow ruin my views on strict construction. as Wry Catcher has figured out (and if you are slower than Wry Catcher, yeesh) Strict construction is not literal construction. There is room for interpretation,. What there is not room for is making crap up.

I'm asking you to apply your standards consistently. Your lack of consistency isn't my problem. Its yours. As the lines you draw are arbitrary, contradicted by US law, the dictionary, or just make no sense.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Who else are the GOP a party of? Hispanics? Jews? Asians? Muslims?

Americans, just like the Democrat Party.

It's people like you that are trying to Balkanize this country, making everyone run back to their own little tribe.

And if you go by the presidential candidates, the Dems are the party of old washed up white people.

What are you babbling about? I'm having a conversation with Correll here, who has stated that one, the GOP represents white people, and two, the GOP does not represent black people.

Jumping into the conversation and replying to your statement. Deal with it.

Then answer the question.

The GOP is a party of Americans, and getting more and more diverse by the year.

LOL, do you expect anyone to believe this ^^^ lie? The party rhetoric of the Big Tent has even been dropped by the Republican Party leadership years ago, do try to keep up.

The great irony is that the gerrymandering efforts of the R's resulted in their gaining majority's in State Legislatures, whose members passed Draconian laws which impacted the rights of women, minorities, seniors, the working poor and the ill, aged and disabled.

Hate and fear, prejudice and bigotry only work for a time, soon The People recognize that such people in power may soon be a threat to them. Of course so do the party leaders, thus voter suppression is their plan today.

 

[Toro]

dream on, angry loon...

LOL

The left is in a panic, full on meltdown.

It's not only Trump who beats the crook Hilliary in head to head polls, it's virtually ANYONE (except Jeb.)

I'm going to laugh at you morons for the next year, as your panic drives you to lash out.

Unfortunately after that, I'll have to live with that idiot Trump in the White House.

Trump has trailed Hillary in most polls, and does relatively worse against her than most other Republican candidates. In the last 27 national polls, Hillary has led Trump in 22, and 2 have been a tie.

 

[Zander]

Trump will destroy the cankled cuckquean. Thanks to Obama's incompetence, he may win all 57 states.