Should american citizens have the right...

[IceBergSLiM]

Who said anything about "personal preservation requirement" ?

And I said SHORT of a nuke, meaning up to, but NOT including.

It wouldn't be possible to build a nuke anyways as you couldn't acquire the radioactive materials even if you could replicate the technology for the bomb housing, delivery and detonation mechanisms and everything else.

 

[MotF Bane]

i think everyone should have the right to own a smoothbore musket, as is promised in the constitution.

unless of course you're an idiot who believes that the second ammendment was written by psychics who knew that weaponry would advance to the point of bombs capable of vaporizing large cities. then i guess you can interpret it as meaning you can own whatever the hell you want.

Please show me where it is promised in the Constitution that everyone has the right to own only a smoothbore musket.

 

[brblx]

Please show me where it is promised in the Constitution that everyone has the right to own only a smoothbore musket.

only if you show me your reading comprehension and capability of making logical inferences.

allow me to spell it out for you- second amendment grants citizens right to 'bear arms.' 'arms' at time of writing were smoothbore muskets. iirc rifling was around if not prominent, so feel free to go ahead and expand that to muzzle-loading rifles.

claims that the framers of the constitution intended for legal ownership of ANY weapons developed at ANY point in time means you assume them to be a league of psychic supermen.

people who think 200+ year old writings are still relevant as anything but a rough framework are funny.

 

[Train]

It wouldn't be possible to build a nuke anyways as you couldn't acquire the radioactive materials even if you could replicate the technology for the bomb housing, delivery and detonation mechanisms and everything else.

huh? Are you paying attention? Or just posting what's in your head?

 

[spidey07]

only if you show me your reading comprehension and capability of making logical inferences.

allow me to spell it out for you- second amendment grants citizens right to 'bear arms.' 'arms' at time of writing were smoothbore muskets. iirc rifling was around if not prominent, so feel free to go ahead and expand that to muzzle-loading rifles.

claims that the framers of the constitution intended for legal ownership of ANY weapons developed at ANY point in time means you assume them to be a league of psychic supermen.

people who think 200+ year old writings are still relevant as anything but a rough framework are funny.

Shall not be infringed.

 

[Train]

i think everyone should have the right to own a smoothbore musket, as is promised in the constitution.

unless of course you're an idiot who believes that the second ammendment was written by psychics who knew that weaponry would advance to the point of bombs capable of vaporizing large cities. then i guess you can interpret it as meaning you can own whatever the hell you want.

let's play with this one a little more.... Convert 2nd to 1st, and you get:

i think everyone should have the right to free speech on their local street corner, as promised in the constitution.

unless of course you're an idiot who believes that the firstammendment was written by psychics who knew that information would advance to the point of lies capable of spreading around the world in a matter of milliseconds. then i guess you can interpret it as meaning you can say whatever the hell you want.

 

[Train]

only if you show me your reading comprehension and capability of making logical inferences.

allow me to spell it out for you- second amendment grants citizens right to 'bear arms.' 'arms' at time of writing were smoothbore muskets. iirc rifling was around if not prominent, so feel free to go ahead and expand that to muzzle-loading rifles.

claims that the framers of the constitution intended for legal ownership of ANY weapons developed at ANY point in time means you assume them to be a league of psychic supermen.

people who think 200+ year old writings are still relevant as anything but a rough framework are funny.

So by your reasoning, free speech can not, and does not, apply to TV, Radio, Internet?

Because OBVIOUSLY, the 1st ammendment only applies to the types of speech available at the time it was written.

You better bail out of this argument real quick.

 

[brblx]

Shall not be infringed.

the constitution also said you have to return escaped slaves to their masters, but we overrode that because it was retarded.

 

[MotF Bane]

only if you show me your reading comprehension and capability of making logical inferences.

allow me to spell it out for you- second amendment grants citizens right to 'bear arms.' 'arms' at time of writing were smoothbore muskets. iirc rifling was around if not prominent, so feel free to go ahead and expand that to muzzle-loading rifles.

claims that the framers of the constitution intended for legal ownership of ANY weapons developed at ANY point in time means you assume them to be a league of psychic supermen.

people who think 200+ year old writings are still relevant as anything but a rough framework are funny.

Okay, let's take the rough framework. As I said earlier in this thread, arms, around the time of writing, roughly meant weapons that were carried and fired by single persons. That's more of a rough framework than specifically smoothbore muskets. Therefore, that category would still include right through submachine guns, sniper rifles, automatic pistols, et cetera.

 

[OCGuy]

i think everyone should have the right to own a smoothbore musket, as is promised in the constitution.

unless of course you're an idiot who believes that the second ammendment was written by psychics who knew that weaponry would advance to the point of bombs capable of vaporizing large cities. then i guess you can interpret it as meaning you can own whatever the hell you want.

Which means your freedom of speech is limited to the printing press. There is no way they were psychic and knew about the internet, television, etc.

 

[MotF Bane]

the constitution also said you have to return escaped slaves to their masters, but we overrode that because it was retarded.

Yes, and anyone with any understanding of history understands how that ended up in there.

 

[MotF Bane]

So by your reasoning, free speech can not, and does not, apply to TV, Radio, Internet?

Because OBVIOUSLY, the 1st ammendment only applies to the types of speech available at the time it was written.

You better bail out of this argument real quick.

Nicely done.

 

[brblx]

So by your reasoning, free speech can not, and does not, apply to TV, Radio, Internet?

Because OBVIOUSLY, the 1st ammendment only applies to the types of speech available at the time it was written.

You better bail out of this argument real quick.

the point is that current cultural relevance must be established, rather than blindly interpreting something at face value.

 

[MotF Bane]

It wouldn't be possible to build a nuke anyways as you couldn't acquire the radioactive materials even if you could replicate the technology for the bomb housing, delivery and detonation mechanisms and everything else.

Bet you could. :awe:

 

[OCGuy]

the constitution also said you have to return escaped slaves to their masters, but we overrode that because it was retarded.

Good luck with that. Guns are a toxic issue, and no politician who wants to be relected will even go there.

 

[MotF Bane]

the point is that current cultural relevance must be established, rather than blindly interpreting something at face value.

The point is that you just hung yourself with your own words, and now you're backpedaling.

 

[Zargon]

the point is that current cultural relevance must be established, rather than blindly interpreting something at face value.

so a gun is no longer a gun culturally?



people owned artillery privately back then, war ships, they were called privateers.

obviously if they could have a giant warship with 80 cannons, we cant have an automatic weapon

 

[drebo]

the point is that current cultural relevance must be established, rather than blindly interpreting something at face value.

That's only the point if you intend to use your "living Constitution" to falsely push your own ideals onto others.

The framers themselves have stated that the Constitution is meant to be taken literally. It's not open to interpretation. If you want to change those rules, there is a very clear path laid out in the Constitution for how to do it (ammendment process).

 

[lozina]

I feel if a government 'for the people' is deemed responsible enough to own anything then so can any of its people.

 

[surfsatwerk]

I feel if a government 'for the people' is deemed responsible enough to own anything then so can any of its people.

Other than the mentally ill and convicted criminals... right? D:

 

[Hacp]

Self defense. Are you going to nuke the robber looking to rape your daughter? No, you disable him with the gun and let law enforcement come and retrieve him.

 

[Kirby]

i think everyone should have the right to own a smoothbore musket, as is promised in the constitution.

unless of course you're an idiot who believes that the second ammendment was written by psychics who knew that weaponry would advance to the point of bombs capable of vaporizing large cities. then i guess you can interpret it as meaning you can own whatever the hell you want.

only if you show me your reading comprehension and capability of making logical inferences.

allow me to spell it out for you- second amendment grants citizens right to 'bear arms.' 'arms' at time of writing were smoothbore muskets. iirc rifling was around if not prominent, so feel free to go ahead and expand that to muzzle-loading rifles.

claims that the framers of the constitution intended for legal ownership of ANY weapons developed at ANY point in time means you assume them to be a league of psychic supermen.

people who think 200+ year old writings are still relevant as anything but a rough framework are funny.

why do you hate america?

 

[Train]

Other than the mentally ill and convicted criminals... right? D:

but the mentally ill and convicted criminals ARE the government.

 

[KGB]

Hey nkgreen,

Fuck You!

 

[BudAshes]

Self defense. Are you going to nuke the robber looking to rape your daughter? No, you disable him with the gun and let law enforcement come and retrieve him.

you can't miss with a nuke.