Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[Jack4jill]

Because the Constitution does not say that cites can ban your right to bear arms when the Constitution says you have a right to bear arms, of course.

The Constitution also does not say what an arm is? And it also doesn't say when, or even if, you can lose that right. All of that was decided by the courts, not the people who wrote the Constitution.

What's in the Constitution, and what is Constitutional are two very different things. How many times must I repeat this point?

Bear Arms, not Bear Firearms. Nuclear weapons, swords, knives, cannons, tanks, etc. are ARMS.

Please tell me you are not as big an idiot as you sound? Lol. READ the Constitution and the relative passages regarding our rights to bear arms, please. Then, hopefully, you will be educated enough to participate in "constitutional" discussions and cease with the complete ridiculousness. TIA.

I've read it. In no place does it say firearms, or what a arm is, or that you can ever lose the right to bear arms, or that said right can be limited by the government.

You are a very stupid person and I can't help you. You have no understanding of the fact that what the Constitution actually means when it says Bear Arms is decided upon by the courts. Nothing in the Constitution says you can lose the right to bear arms or that you can't have whatever "arms" you like. That all came about much later, from the courts, not the Constitution.

The implication? Guns, like nukes, could also be banned. Banning one arm is no different than banning another, if the courts say such a ban is Constitutional and they are allowed, by law and tradition, to do so.

While you might be top poster of the month, you are not top thinker of the month. Post less, think more.

Like I said, you are clueless. Lol.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6]while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "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" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[15]

Do not post what I already know, and understand that you do not.

Really, just how dumb are you actually? So far, you are a complete idiot incapable of any higher reasoning.

Face facts, old woman! We have facts, the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights, and over 60% of the American people on our side. All you have is fear, myths, untruths, idealistic fantasies, and bullshit on your side.

Facts are what I have. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you can't bear a nuclear weapon, does it Puddles?

 

[P@triot]

It means the right to keep and bear arms. That is black and white, crystal clear, and easy to understand. My God man, it's a total of seven words. If you need a court to figure out for you what 7 words in plain English mean, you have a LOT bigger problems in life than the 2nd Amendment.

It’s a total of 3 words you can’t comprehend: A “well-regulated militia”.

You trotted out Switzerland as an example of your utopia. It’s a well-regulated militia that they have. And low and behold, guys who think they should be able to buy land-mines are probably kept in padded rooms somewhere and closely monitored. Idiots like you would never see a gun in Switzerland.

Well, I guess you'll have to take that up with the courts. They have determined that the right to bear arms applies to individuals. Have you ever read the federalist papers?

The Federalist Papers don't change the fact that the court could rule either way. What it says is Constitutional is, regardless of what the actual Constitution says.

How long before you get this?

I think the Federalist Papers would help you two Einsteins figure things out.

If the Federalist Papers, I've read them, said you could beat your kids to death the courts say no, you can't, so they don't matter a damn in reality. Interesting but not binding on anything the courts do.

First of all, you have't read the Federalist Papers. That part is painfully obvious. Second, the Federalist Papers don't say it's ok to beat your kids, so that's a nonsensical point. Third, the Federalist Papers prove the thinking and intent of some of the founders.

 

[ChrisL]

Please tell me you are not as big an idiot as you sound? Lol. READ the Constitution and the relative passages regarding our rights to bear arms, please. Then, hopefully, you will be educated enough to participate in "constitutional" discussions and cease with the complete ridiculousness. TIA.

I've read it. In no place does it say firearms, or what a arm is, or that you can ever lose the right to bear arms, or that said right can be limited by the government.

You are a very stupid person and I can't help you. You have no understanding of the fact that what the Constitution actually means when it says Bear Arms is decided upon by the courts. Nothing in the Constitution says you can lose the right to bear arms or that you can't have whatever "arms" you like. That all came about much later, from the courts, not the Constitution.

The implication? Guns, like nukes, could also be banned. Banning one arm is no different than banning another, if the courts say such a ban is Constitutional and they are allowed, by law and tradition, to do so.

While you might be top poster of the month, you are not top thinker of the month. Post less, think more.

Like I said, you are clueless. Lol.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6]while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "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" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[15]

Do not post what I already know, and understand that you do not.

Really, just how dumb are you actually? So far, you are a complete idiot incapable of any higher reasoning.

Face facts, old woman! We have facts, the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights, and over 60% of the American people on our side. All you have is fear, myths, untruths, idealistic fantasies, and bullshit on your side.

Facts are what I have. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you can't bear a nuclear weapon, does it Puddles?

Again, another stupid pointless post. Lol.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

You don't own firearms. That is an unnecessary tax on me. Nope. A firing squad will fix this problem very quickly.

I find it to be a reasonable remedy. A serious deterrent to those who want to use firearms in the commission of a crime.

If you don’t own a car, you don’t have to carry liability insurance. If you do, you have to have it. Sorry.

Driving or owning a car is not a constitutional right. Apples and oranges. Now, shall we discuss "voter ID?"

Where does the right to vote say you need ID? As a matter of fact, where is the right to vote?

It's not in the Constitution that's for sure.

But my right to own ARMS is.

Bear arms, whatever the hell that actually means and they didn't define it.

On the top left of your computer screen is a tab.
Align you mouse pointer over the tab and left click.
When the tab opens type in the word "arms" and read what it says.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

You don't own firearms. That is an unnecessary tax on me. Nope. A firing squad will fix this problem very quickly.

I find it to be a reasonable remedy. A serious deterrent to those who want to use firearms in the commission of a crime.

If you don’t own a car, you don’t have to carry liability insurance. If you do, you have to have it. Sorry.

Driving or owning a car is not a constitutional right. Apples and oranges. Now, shall we discuss "voter ID?"

Where does the right to vote say you need ID? As a matter of fact, where is the right to vote?

It's not in the Constitution that's for sure.

But my right to own ARMS is.

If you’re in a “well regulated militia"

Didn't we have a discussion about a well regulated Militia in another thread.

My how you forget so quickly

 

[Jack4jill]

I'm done with this one. She is simply too stupid to understand that the Constitution and what is Constitutional are two different things, and that if the courts can ban some "arms", they can ban "all arms".

The Constitution doesn't say they can but they can and do because they are allowed to say what the Constitution actually means by "arms".

 

[ChrisL]

This was one of the rulings by the Supreme Court . . .

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people" ... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

 

[Jack4jill]

If you don’t own a car, you don’t have to carry liability insurance. If you do, you have to have it. Sorry.

Driving or owning a car is not a constitutional right. Apples and oranges. Now, shall we discuss "voter ID?"

Where does the right to vote say you need ID? As a matter of fact, where is the right to vote?

It's not in the Constitution that's for sure.

But my right to own ARMS is.

Bear arms, whatever the hell that actually means and they didn't define it.

On the top left of your computer screen is a tab.
Align you mouse pointer over the tab and left click.
When the tab opens type in the word "arms" and read what it says.

Now, care to show us where the Constitution says I can't bear a nuclear arm?

 

[ChrisL]

I'm done with this one. She is simply too stupid to understand that the Constitution and what is Constitutional are two different things, and that if the courts can ban some "arms", they can ban "all arms".

The Constitution doesn't say they can but they can and do because they are allowed to say what the Constitution actually means by "arms".

No, that would be you. You have a very, very poor understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You are totally clueless and a complete mess. Bye-bye now! You can go throw a hissy fit because you are wrong somewhere else. Nobody will miss you.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Driving or owning a car is not a constitutional right. Apples and oranges. Now, shall we discuss "voter ID?"

Where does the right to vote say you need ID? As a matter of fact, where is the right to vote?

It's not in the Constitution that's for sure.

But my right to own ARMS is.

Bear arms, whatever the hell that actually means and they didn't define it.

On the top left of your computer screen is a tab.
Align you mouse pointer over the tab and left click.
When the tab opens type in the word "arms" and read what it says.

View attachment 74500

Very good. Now.
Do you see the word firearms?

That is the definition of the "arms" specified in the document commonly referred to as the Constitution.

You did very well today.

Class dismissed.

 

[Jack4jill]

I've read it. In no place does it say firearms, or what a arm is, or that you can ever lose the right to bear arms, or that said right can be limited by the government.

You are a very stupid person and I can't help you. You have no understanding of the fact that what the Constitution actually means when it says Bear Arms is decided upon by the courts. Nothing in the Constitution says you can lose the right to bear arms or that you can't have whatever "arms" you like. That all came about much later, from the courts, not the Constitution.

The implication? Guns, like nukes, could also be banned. Banning one arm is no different than banning another, if the courts say such a ban is Constitutional and they are allowed, by law and tradition, to do so.

While you might be top poster of the month, you are not top thinker of the month. Post less, think more.

Like I said, you are clueless. Lol.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6]while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "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" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[15]

Do not post what I already know, and understand that you do not.

Really, just how dumb are you actually? So far, you are a complete idiot incapable of any higher reasoning.

Face facts, old woman! We have facts, the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights, and over 60% of the American people on our side. All you have is fear, myths, untruths, idealistic fantasies, and bullshit on your side.

Facts are what I have. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you can't bear a nuclear weapon, does it Puddles?

Again, another stupid pointless post. Lol.

There is nothing pointless about it. The courts say I can't have a nuke, not the Constitution, right Puddles?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I prefer a .30 M1919

Depends on the situation YSW! Home invasion? Give me my 12-gauage Mossberg. Mass rioting? I'll take Barrett M468 in fully automatic, thank you (sadly though, that model is outlawed at this time). CQC against one or two? I'll go with the LWRCI PSD!

No one size fits all. Each weapon has a specific design for a specific function. I also wouldn't mind having the FN SCAR-16 in my arsenal!

You're taking all of the fun out of the phrase kill them all and let God sort them out. lol.

 

[Jack4jill]

Where does the right to vote say you need ID? As a matter of fact, where is the right to vote?

It's not in the Constitution that's for sure.

But my right to own ARMS is.

Bear arms, whatever the hell that actually means and they didn't define it.

On the top left of your computer screen is a tab.
Align you mouse pointer over the tab and left click.
When the tab opens type in the word "arms" and read what it says.

View attachment 74500

Very good. Now.
Do you see the word firearms?

That is the definition of the "arms" specified in the document commonly referred to as the Constitution.

You did very well today.

Class dismissed.

The Constitution says Arms, not Firearms. Do you think the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover knives, swords, clubs, battleaxes, etc.?

Prove it?

 

[ChrisL]

If you are going to argue about constitutional rights, please try to be realistic and know what you are talking about. Otherwise, you come across a complete tool.

Now . . .

To address the idea of government imposed "taxes or levies" on bearing arms . . .

(17) The Union government also has excise taxing power, but since arms have special status under the Constitution, no tax may be levied that imposes an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms. Rights are more fundamental than taxing powers, particularly since the right to keep and bear arms is recognized in an amendment which supersedes any prior provisions that conflict with it, which includes all taxing powers except the income tax (which does not provide a basis for taxing arms). Arms may be taxed as general merchandise is, such as with a sales tax, but any tax law which specifies arms for special taxes, other than reasonable use fees for public services related to them, must be considered unconstitutional. That would include taxes on ammunition and the ingredients to make it. The analogy is to taxes on newsprint, which may be taxed like other merchandise, but not in a way that would impose an undue burden on the right of a free press.

(18) This means that no government has the power, unless that power is specifically granted to it under its constitution, to prohibit any person from manufacturing or possessing any gun or ammunition for it on his own premises or where he has a right to be, or against using it in a safe and responsible manner, or against selling or giving it to another person within the borders of a state.


To address the idea about what constitutes "arms" . . .

Arms

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm done with this one. She is simply too stupid to understand that the Constitution and what is Constitutional are two different things, and that if the courts can ban some "arms", they can ban "all arms".

The Constitution doesn't say they can but they can and do because they are allowed to say what the Constitution actually means by "arms".

Just because you can't understand our constitutional rights doesn't mean I'm stupid. Lol.

 

[P@triot]

The site of a 6 year old having to listen to one of these crackheads is disconcerting. I’m sure they’ll grow up great!!!

In other words, Corny is really upset that they won't grow up being brainwashed to be liberal. It's hilarious to se how much that bothers libs. Go into any thread about home schooling and you'll see their heads exploding as they talk about how those homeschooled children can't be infected with the cancer known as liberalism.

Still think Wal Mart should be able to sell landmines? Yes or no.

Man....I've been very clear on this. But I will do it one more time for you:

Yes. Whatever the U.S. government has, I should have. They are not above me. In fact, they are below me. They answer to the people. The people does not answer to them. In what world did you grow up in where the subordinate had more resources and power than the superior? Is there anything about that which you don't understand? How much clearer can I make it for you?

Now, that being said, I think it's important to add one more thing. Under Bill Clinton, the U.S. government started looking at eliminating APW's (anti-personnel weapons). In 2014, Obama released a memo that the U.S. would no longer manufacture and deploy APM (anti-personnel mines). Their thinking was rational. That innocent children and civilians not engaged in any form of conflict against the U.S. could step on them and die. If the U.S. military doesn't have the weapon in their arsenal, I could see some discussions around eliminating it from the citizens arsenal. I didn't say ban it. I didn't say regulate. I said discussions. As in, make the case to the people why we should voluntarily give them up (much the way society has handled cigarettes).

You irrational liberals simply do not understand how to address this issue. You fail to recognize that criminals don't follow the law, so making laws does nothing to stop them. Murder is already illegal and punishable by death. If that doesn't stop psycho's from picking up a gun and killing someone, how will outlawing guns stop them?!?

Oh, you’ve been clear. I just like making you look like a complete nut job as opposed to the standard issue nut job you always appear to be.

2 follow ups.

Why limit yourself to ONLY the stuff the US Government has? I mean, the Constitution doesn’t place that limit on you so stuff the US says it doesn’t have in it’s inventory should be fair play then…right? Sarin gas, hedgehog ASW, the old VC “flying telephone pole” anti-aircraft defense weapons. You should be able to get them right?

Secondly, in your M1A1, you should be able to drive it anywhere as long as you don’t violate safety laws, right?

Where did I ever "limit" myself. I said if the U.S. government has it, I should be able to have it as well. I never said that's all I should be limited to. Reading comprehension my dear. Reading comprehension.

Help me to understand here (because you're clearly so wise ) - why are you not crying about the U.S. military being armed? We saw Nadal Hassan go on a shooting rampage. And I remember in the 1990's, someone took a tank off a base and drive it all over California destroying everything in site. Yet not once have I heard you scream to disarm the U.S. military. Why? Why are you so bizarrely inconsistent in your views?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I'm done with this one. She is simply too stupid to understand that the Constitution and what is Constitutional are two different things, and that if the courts can ban some "arms", they can ban "all arms".

The Constitution doesn't say they can but they can and do because they are allowed to say what the Constitution actually means by "arms".

For 240 years the citizenry has had the right to keep and bear arms.

According to you that is not what it means?

 

[Jack4jill]

I'm done with this one. She is simply too stupid to understand that the Constitution and what is Constitutional are two different things, and that if the courts can ban some "arms", they can ban "all arms".

The Constitution doesn't say they can but they can and do because they are allowed to say what the Constitution actually means by "arms".

Just because you can't understand our constitutional rights doesn't mean I'm stupid. Lol.

I understand them, and how they are defined, limited, and enforced perfectly, dummy.

 

[ChrisL]

It means the right to keep and bear arms. That is black and white, crystal clear, and easy to understand. My God man, it's a total of seven words. If you need a court to figure out for you what 7 words in plain English mean, you have a LOT bigger problems in life than the 2nd Amendment.

It’s a total of 3 words you can’t comprehend: A “well-regulated militia”.

You trotted out Switzerland as an example of your utopia. It’s a well-regulated militia that they have. And low and behold, guys who think they should be able to buy land-mines are probably kept in padded rooms somewhere and closely monitored. Idiots like you would never see a gun in Switzerland.

Well, I guess you'll have to take that up with the courts. They have determined that the right to bear arms applies to individuals. Have you ever read the federalist papers?

The Federalist Papers don't change the fact that the court could rule either way. What it says is Constitutional is, regardless of what the actual Constitution says.

How long before you get this?

I think the Federalist Papers would help you two Einsteins figure things out.

If the Federalist Papers, I've read them, said you could beat your kids to death the courts say no, you can't, so they don't matter a damn in reality. Interesting but not binding on anything the courts do.

You are ridiculous to the utmost degree. Please try to control yourself and stop making silly insinuations. Thanks.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm done with this one. She is simply too stupid to understand that the Constitution and what is Constitutional are two different things, and that if the courts can ban some "arms", they can ban "all arms".

The Constitution doesn't say they can but they can and do because they are allowed to say what the Constitution actually means by "arms".

Just because you can't understand our constitutional rights doesn't mean I'm stupid. Lol.

I understand them, and how they are defined, limited, and enforced perfectly, dummy.

Apparently, you do not. I've already posted for you what "arms" means according to the government definition. Lol.