Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[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".

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

According to you that is not what it means?

Not according to me, according to the courts. The Constitution doesn't say you can't bear a nuke, the courts do.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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?

Firearms are arms.

You can continue to twist yourself into a pretzel Joe but you are still not going to get our "Arms"

 

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

It doesn't say anything about nuclear arms. I would prefer that nobody had nuclear arms.

But what does that have to do with law-abiding citizens owning firearms or arms.

 

[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.

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

And just where does it say the government gets to define what a word means, what "arms" are? If you say they can ban nukes, defining them as unconstitutional arms, why not other arms, even those that around at the time.

Don't assume you know what the founders meant by arms, they didn't specify them and the courts have found that even arms created recently count as protected by the right to bear arms.

 

[ChrisL]

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

It doesn't say anything about nuclear arms. I would prefer that nobody had nuclear arms.

But what does that have to do with law-abiding citizens owning firearms or arms.

Too bad, the poster is getting ornery because we are destroying her arguments with our bullshit-seeking missiles!

 

[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.

And just where does it say the government gets to define what a word means, what "arms" are? If you say they can ban nukes, defining them as unconstitutional arms, why not other arms, even those that around at the time.

Don't assume you know what the founders meant by arms, they didn't specify them and the courts have found that even arms created recently count as protected by the right to bear arms.

Because we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves and our property with the appropriate "arms" which includes guns. 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
Now, care to show us where the Constitution says I can't bear a nuclear arm?

It doesn't say anything about nuclear arms. I would prefer that nobody had nuclear arms.

But what does that have to do with law-abiding citizens owning firearms or arms.

It has to do with the fact that it says Bear Arms, not only Bear Only Certain Arms. Are swords not covered, crossbows, how about big knives or Tasers?

It says Arms, it does not, and never has, defined what the hell those actually were.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I just love to yank the chains of the those who will attempt to disarm us.

They think the Constitution is fluid and can mean whatever they say it means.

 

[ChrisL]

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

It doesn't say anything about nuclear arms. I would prefer that nobody had nuclear arms.

But what does that have to do with law-abiding citizens owning firearms or arms.

It has nothing to do with anything. The poster is desperately grasping at straws because she is on the losing side of the argument.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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

It doesn't say anything about nuclear arms. I would prefer that nobody had nuclear arms.

But what does that have to do with law-abiding citizens owning firearms or arms.

It has to do with the fact that it says Bear Arms, not only Bear Only Certain Arms. Are swords not covered, crossbows, how about big knives or Tasers?

It says Arms, it does not, and never has, defined what the hell those actually were.

Should they just have said the current weapons of the time, subject to change as arms are developed?

 

[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.

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

And just where does it say the government gets to define what a word means, what "arms" are? If you say they can ban nukes, defining them as unconstitutional arms, why not other arms, even those that around at the time.

Don't assume you know what the founders meant by arms, they didn't specify them and the courts have found that even arms created recently count as protected by the right to bear arms.

Because we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves and our property with the appropriate "arms" which includes guns. Lol.

Where does the Constitution say "appropriate" arms?

No, it says Arms. Puddles is right about that. You assume you know what that means? You don't.

 

[ChrisL]

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

It doesn't say anything about nuclear arms. I would prefer that nobody had nuclear arms.

But what does that have to do with law-abiding citizens owning firearms or arms.

It has to do with the fact that it says Bear Arms, not only Bear Only Certain Arms. Are swords not covered, crossbows, how about big knives or Tasers?

It says Arms, it does not, and never has, defined what the hell those actually were.

We have a constitutional right to keep and carry firearms (guns). That is all there is to it. You have no argument here. It's already been argued in the highest court in the land. Guess what? Your side lost.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

And just where does it say the government gets to define what a word means, what "arms" are? If you say they can ban nukes, defining them as unconstitutional arms, why not other arms, even those that around at the time.

Don't assume you know what the founders meant by arms, they didn't specify them and the courts have found that even arms created recently count as protected by the right to bear arms.

Because we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves and our property with the appropriate "arms" which includes guns. Lol.

Where does the Constitution say "appropriate" arms?

No, it says Arms. Puddles is right about that. You assume you know what that means? You don't.

I'm going by SCOTUS statements on the issue. Lol.

 

[Jack4jill]

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

It doesn't say anything about nuclear arms. I would prefer that nobody had nuclear arms.

But what does that have to do with law-abiding citizens owning firearms or arms.

It has to do with the fact that it says Bear Arms, not only Bear Only Certain Arms. Are swords not covered, crossbows, how about big knives or Tasers?

It says Arms, it does not, and never has, defined what the hell those actually were.

Should they just have said the current weapons of the time, subject to change as arms are developed?

Should they? Who the **** cares. What they said was bear arms so how do you get from there to you can have guns but not nukes?

You have to think people, and you obviously don't.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

And just where does it say the government gets to define what a word means, what "arms" are? If you say they can ban nukes, defining them as unconstitutional arms, why not other arms, even those that around at the time.

Don't assume you know what the founders meant by arms, they didn't specify them and the courts have found that even arms created recently count as protected by the right to bear arms.

Because we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves and our property with the appropriate "arms" which includes guns. Lol.

Where does the Constitution say "appropriate" arms?

No, it says Arms. Puddles is right about that. You assume you know what that means? You don't.

Who is "puddles?" Sorry. I don't know of any posters by that name.

 

[ChrisL]

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

It doesn't say anything about nuclear arms. I would prefer that nobody had nuclear arms.

But what does that have to do with law-abiding citizens owning firearms or arms.

It has to do with the fact that it says Bear Arms, not only Bear Only Certain Arms. Are swords not covered, crossbows, how about big knives or Tasers?

It says Arms, it does not, and never has, defined what the hell those actually were.

Should they just have said the current weapons of the time, subject to change as arms are developed?

Should they? Who the **** cares. What they said was bear arms so how do you get from there to you can have guns but not nukes?

You have to think people, and you obviously don't.

You've lost, and you are a sore loser. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. Sorry. You lose . . . again.

 

[Jack4jill]

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.

And just where does it say the government gets to define what a word means, what "arms" are? If you say they can ban nukes, defining them as unconstitutional arms, why not other arms, even those that around at the time.

Don't assume you know what the founders meant by arms, they didn't specify them and the courts have found that even arms created recently count as protected by the right to bear arms.

Because we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves and our property with the appropriate "arms" which includes guns. Lol.

Where does the Constitution say "appropriate" arms?

No, it says Arms. Puddles is right about that. You assume you know what that means? You don't.

I'm going by SCOTUS statements on the issue. Lol.

And that is what we do, in the real world, for those unlike Puddles but Puddles is correct, what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court says are two very different things.

 

[ChrisL]

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

And just where does it say the government gets to define what a word means, what "arms" are? If you say they can ban nukes, defining them as unconstitutional arms, why not other arms, even those that around at the time.

Don't assume you know what the founders meant by arms, they didn't specify them and the courts have found that even arms created recently count as protected by the right to bear arms.

Because we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves and our property with the appropriate "arms" which includes guns. Lol.

Where does the Constitution say "appropriate" arms?

No, it says Arms. Puddles is right about that. You assume you know what that means? You don't.

I'm going by SCOTUS statements on the issue. Lol.

And that is what we do, in the real world, for those unlike Puddles but Puddles is correct, what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court says are two very different things.

Nope, they aren't at all. You are just making yourself look foolish. Maybe it's time for a nap.

 

[Jack4jill]

View attachment 74500
Now, care to show us where the Constitution says I can't bear a nuclear arm?

It doesn't say anything about nuclear arms. I would prefer that nobody had nuclear arms.

But what does that have to do with law-abiding citizens owning firearms or arms.

It has to do with the fact that it says Bear Arms, not only Bear Only Certain Arms. Are swords not covered, crossbows, how about big knives or Tasers?

It says Arms, it does not, and never has, defined what the hell those actually were.

Should they just have said the current weapons of the time, subject to change as arms are developed?

Should they? Who the **** cares. What they said was bear arms so how do you get from there to you can have guns but not nukes?

You have to think people, and you obviously don't.

You've lost, and you are a sore loser. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. Sorry. You lose . . . again.

How can I lose? I can't. You have already allowed the courts to define what are and are not "constitutionally protected arms". All the gun banners have to do is get the court to decide guns are also, like nukes, not included and the right to own firearms goes away.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The same place it says you need an ID to buy a gun.

Yeah, that's not in there in either, and neither is what are "arms".

Neither are background checks, waiting periods, registration or licensing.
In fact, neither is making it illegal for criminals to buy/own/possess guns.

Now we are getting somewhere. Those things might be "constitutional" but they are not in the Constitution itself. It says things like right to bear arms, and the courts are stuck figuring out just what that actually means?

You need to make up your mind.

My mind is made up. What the Constitution says, and what the courts who have to define what it actually means, are two different things,

And so...? What's your point?