Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[frigidweirdo]

The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country. The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks. Why can't we have access to those things? What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?

Exactly. Our founders didn't say the right to bear "muskets". Or the right to bear "handguns". They said the right to bear arms. There are no limits on the type of weapons we can have. Of it's ok for the government to have them, and the government answers to the people, then it's sure as hell of for the people to have them.

Wrong.

You and other rightwing nitwits whine about the Second Amendment yet are completely ignorant as to its meaning and case law:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

As a fact of settled and accepted law the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ the Constitution authorizes government to place reasonable restrictions on all manner of rights, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Consequently, there are in fact limits on the type of weapons you may have.

And because of your ignorance and stupidity you and other rightwing morons reflect poorly on those of us who own firearms, enjoy the shooting sports, and seek to defend the Second Amendment right.

Thank you for posting that quote from arguably the most conservative justice and the right's best ally on the court , Justice Scalia.

Scalia basically saying the right to bear arms is NOT the right to carry arms. If it were, then concealed weapons permits would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

You must be posing because your silly and extreme arguments are doing little to back your position. Lol.

The extreme argument is the one that thinks only Nazis want to control weapons. I don't see you starting the Nationsl Pipe Bomb Association, right?

You are ridiculous. Lol.

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

Criminals in places like Iraq do in fact use bombs. If you take away one weapon, they will use another and perhaps more destructive weapon in it's place. Besides the fact that guns are never going to go away. They exist . . . period. If you "ban" them, you are just pushing that industry into the black market where there is no way to trace or "control" anything.

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell the guns off to the armies of the world.

Tyrant. Come get them coward.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, they didn't. The sentence that is the 2nd Amendment begins with the reason why citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. It is plain language. The concept and ruling that the Amendment included the individual rights are recent and a major change from past interpretations. It was narrowly passed by the Robert's court with an opinion written by Justice Scalia.
That decision can be turned any time and will rely on future Justice's agreeing with the Scalia opinion. That is a major reason the replacement of Scalia is being denied.

The fact that you even think that the Supreme Court has the power to decide what the Constitution says and to create or alter law from the bench just shows how much you don't know about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government.

Considering that is their primary purpose, I would say you are indeed the clueless one.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

Japan, few guns and very peaceful. Iraq, many guns and no peace.

Try again, Puddles.

That's due to culture and not the "tool".

That's incorrect. Iraq was peaceful, before Bush. You can have peace with or without guns. That is what scares your ilk.

One search and you will find that entire region has been at war for centuries

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

Everywhere?

You cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Dummy, I know this but that changes nothing.

Your constant resorting to name-calling just reveals what kind of a lowly person you really are.

Do you live in the United States?

Dummy is not a name in this case. It is your mental ability, a highly limited one.

Seems I'm the one capable of rational and reasonable discussion. You are the one getting all . . . crazy. I can see why you wouldn't want others to own guns considering your own poor self control. Lol.

Guns are mostly unnecessary now. Does not wanting people to have biological weapons at home make me crazy? Am I a Nazi for wanting a ban on personal nuclear weapons?

Next time, try to think a little.

Biological weapons are as bad or worse than nuclear. A change in direction of the wind and it willl blow back in your face. Not to mention the crap you have to wear for protection. I've worn the military versions and to say they are unconfortable is an under statement.

MOPP training was the worst. For some reason it was always in July.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Your constant resorting to name-calling just reveals what kind of a lowly person you really are.

Do you live in the United States?

Dummy is not a name in this case. It is your mental ability, a highly limited one.

Seems I'm the one capable of rational and reasonable discussion. You are the one getting all . . . crazy. I can see why you wouldn't want others to own guns considering your own poor self control. Lol.

Guns are mostly unnecessary now. Does not wanting people to have biological weapons at home make me crazy? Am I a Nazi for wanting a ban on personal nuclear weapons?

Next time, try to think a little.

Biological weapons are as bad or worse than nuclear. A change in direction of the wind and it willl blow back in your face. Not to mention the crap you have to wear for protection. I've worn the military versions and to say they are unconfortable is an under statement.

MOPP training was the worst. For some reason it was always in July.

The only time I felt even close to being comfortable at level 5 was winter time at Ft. Drum.

 

[P@triot]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

Everywhere?

You cannot be taken seriously.

That fact that you attempt to take the obvious to the most literal extreme in order to argue something which cannot be argued actually means that you cannot be taken seriously.

 

[P@triot]

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell the guns off to the armies of the world.

Blah. Blah. Blah. The false bravado of libtards all over this board is comical. They believe if they proclaim something outrageous, not only will it "enrage" those on the other side (for their own amusement - juvenile), but there is also a part of them that believes they can speak it into existence.

Congress will never ban firearms. Especially since the failures of liberalism handed both the House and the Senate over to conservatives. If you attempt to achieve that through a Supreme Court ruling, that is 100% unconstitutional and that means we don't have to comply (and we won't).

And here's the best part. Even if you managed to achieve it through Congress (and again - that will never happen), we're still not surrendering our firearms. We have a Constitutional right to them. The overwhelming majority of the military and law enforcement strongly agrees with that. I remember when my state passed conceal carry, law enforcement was ecstatic. I met with a lot of them and they all said the same thing "I can't be everywhere at once" and "I'm not worried about all of you people going through background checks for your permits". See, the criminals they deal with were already armed anyway. It didn't put law enforcement in any more danger to arm law abiding citizens. It's just basic logic. Which is why you liberals don't understand it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Dummy is not a name in this case. It is your mental ability, a highly limited one.

Seems I'm the one capable of rational and reasonable discussion. You are the one getting all . . . crazy. I can see why you wouldn't want others to own guns considering your own poor self control. Lol.

Guns are mostly unnecessary now. Does not wanting people to have biological weapons at home make me crazy? Am I a Nazi for wanting a ban on personal nuclear weapons?

Next time, try to think a little.

Biological weapons are as bad or worse than nuclear. A change in direction of the wind and it willl blow back in your face. Not to mention the crap you have to wear for protection. I've worn the military versions and to say they are unconfortable is an under statement.

MOPP training was the worst. For some reason it was always in July.

The only time I felt even close to being comfortable at level 5 was winter time at Ft. Drum.

The most hated words, gas...gas....gas.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

Everywhere?

You cannot be taken seriously.

That fact that you attempt to take the obvious to the most literal extreme in order to argue something which cannot be argued actually means that you cannot be taken seriously.

You wrote it, not me. Try saying what you mean next time.

 

[P@triot]

That's incorrect. Iraq was peaceful, before Bush. You can have peace with or without guns.

Iraq was "peaceful"??? The populace was disarmed and terrified of a dictator who tortured and killed thousands. That's your idea of "peaceful"?

Yep! Typical libtard....calling for authoritarian dictator to rule the U.S. Listen J4J - the U.S. Constitution promised you liberty. It never promised you security. Clearly liberty is too "scary" for you (all libtards find it frightening for some reason) so it's just time for you to leave. There are plenty of disarmed socialist nations that you can run to and live you "utopia" of a disarmed populace under the thumb of a tyrant. One is Cuba - and it's very close to the U.S. so you can stop and visit the one or two people able to stomach you in this country.

 

[there4eyeM]

When U.S. soldiers shot innocent, unarmed civilians, why would they not shoot civilians actually breaking a law, even one that perhaps the soldiers didn't totally agree with?

 

[P@triot]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

Everywhere?

You cannot be taken seriously.

That fact that you attempt to take the obvious to the most literal extreme in order to argue something which cannot be argued actually means that you cannot be taken seriously.

You wrote it, not me. Try saying what you mean next time.

Actually....you wrote it. You weren't capable of disputing what I said so you have to attempt to distort it since you can't deny it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

Everywhere?

You cannot be taken seriously.

That fact that you attempt to take the obvious to the most literal extreme in order to argue something which cannot be argued actually means that you cannot be taken seriously.

You wrote it, not me. Try saying what you mean next time.

Actually....you wrote it. You weren't capable of disputing what I said so you have to attempt to distort it since you can't deny it.

Except I disputed directly what you said. You seem confused.

 

[candycorn]

Now compare that to America: full of guns and the most gun deaths of any advanced society on earth.

Obviously if guns made one safer, we'd have almost no gun deaths. Instead we have, by far, the most of any of our peers.

Obviously, more guns only results in more gun deaths; nothing else.

Liberal "logic" at its finest. Ban guns, when people die where guns are banned, blame it on guns

It only happens where guns are banned. And you know it too....which is why you get so upset

Rott:

"People die where guns are banned."

Guns are not banned in America. Yet we have the most gun deaths of any advanced society.

Guns are banned in Australia and most of Europe. They have fewer gun deaths in decades than we have in years.

I win.

 

[candycorn]

T
In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

Japan, few guns and very peaceful. Iraq, many guns and no peace.

Try again, Puddles.

We don't live in Japan or Iraq junior. Try again. How sad is it that you have to point to nations literally all the way across the world to make your case for policy you want here in the U.S.

By the way - if guns are too scary for you and Japan is so wonderful - go live there.

Lastly, why are you even here? You already admitted that the 1st Amendment rights to not extend to the internet (that were your own words). Our founders could have never anticipated computers, much less an interconnected linking of devices across the world. That was not their intent when they created the 1st Amendment. So shut the f' up, turn your computer off, and sit there quietly.

Japan and Iraq completely destroy what you believe. Suck it, Puddles.

And the founders didn't anticipate the guns you love so suck that as well.

Yes they did. They already had weapons that fired multiple rounds per second look up the Puckle Gun it was the first weapon to be refereed to as a machine gun. Patented in 1718. Regardless The Constitution says Right to bear arms. It doesn't say right to bear single shot, flint lock, smooth bore musket. .

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

That shuts them up every time....I have no idea what the response was but I'm guessing it was either no response or that the "costs made such questions inmaterial" or some bullshit like that.

Should I be able to go down to Wal Mart and buy landmines? Surely the costs are not prohibitive, all they do is blow up using conventional explosives and either a pressure trigger or a proximity device; just what I need for halloween; I can put them 0.00000000000000000000000001 inch inside my "no trespassing" sign and if any kids come, blammo!!!! I'm innocent by virtue of the sign and that we have concealed carry.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Japan, few guns and very peaceful. Iraq, many guns and no peace.

Try again, Puddles.

We don't live in Japan or Iraq junior. Try again. How sad is it that you have to point to nations literally all the way across the world to make your case for policy you want here in the U.S.

By the way - if guns are too scary for you and Japan is so wonderful - go live there.

Lastly, why are you even here? You already admitted that the 1st Amendment rights to not extend to the internet (that were your own words). Our founders could have never anticipated computers, much less an interconnected linking of devices across the world. That was not their intent when they created the 1st Amendment. So shut the f' up, turn your computer off, and sit there quietly.

Japan and Iraq completely destroy what you believe. Suck it, Puddles.

And the founders didn't anticipate the guns you love so suck that as well.

Yes they did. They already had weapons that fired multiple rounds per second look up the Puckle Gun it was the first weapon to be refereed to as a machine gun. Patented in 1718. Regardless The Constitution says Right to bear arms. It doesn't say right to bear single shot, flint lock, smooth bore musket. .

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

That shuts them up every time....I have no idea what the response was but I'm guessing it was either no response or that the "costs made such questions inmaterial" or some bullshit like that.

Should I be able to go down to Wal Mart and buy landmines? Surely the costs are not prohibitive, all they do is blow up using conventional explosives and either a pressure trigger or a proximity device; just what I need for halloween; I can put them 0.00000000000000000000000001 inch inside my "no trespassing" sign and if any kids come, blammo!!!! I'm innocent by virtue of the sign and that we have concealed carry.

Gawd you trolls are stupid

 

[M14 Shooter]

The right to bear arms doens't go far enough in this country. The military is developing some pretty powerful weapons such as laser tanks. Why can't we have access to those things? What is the point of having the right to bear arms if the public's access to them is severely restricted?

Exactly. Our founders didn't say the right to bear "muskets". Or the right to bear "handguns". They said the right to bear arms. There are no limits on the type of weapons we can have. Of it's ok for the government to have them, and the government answers to the people, then it's sure as hell of for the people to have them.

Wrong.

You and other rightwing nitwits whine about the Second Amendment yet are completely ignorant as to its meaning and case law:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

As a fact of settled and accepted law the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ the Constitution authorizes government to place reasonable restrictions on all manner of rights, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Consequently, there are in fact limits on the type of weapons you may have.

And because of your ignorance and stupidity you and other rightwing morons reflect poorly on those of us who own firearms, enjoy the shooting sports, and seek to defend the Second Amendment right.

Thank you for posting that quote from arguably the most conservative justice and the right's best ally on the court , Justice Scalia.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

What, exactly, do you suppose all this means?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

That shuts them up every time...

Only the people who think nuclear weapons are firearms.
The rest of us? Not so much.
Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same.