South Carolina police shootout, five leo shot, one of them died

[Blackjack200]

I still wonder how those gun nuts reconcile not being able to own working tanks and bombers or nukes with their interpretation of the 2A.

I'm no fan of the police, but I have to say, I'm impressed with the cop body count that 2A supporters have achieved. Holy shit, they must really hate blue lives.

It's amazing that BLM gets blamed for cops getting killed, but the NRA doesn't. Hmm, I wonder why...

 

[SlowSpyder]

Right to bear arms, not firearms. Try reading the 2A, dolt. Should include nuclear arms. Can you own a current technology fully operable tank if you pay enough?

No one argues that the 2A covers anything but firearms. That has been the known interpretation since the ink was still wet on the paper.

You can own a tank, your comment was that you cannot, the reality is you can with a working gun and all. Can you buy an Abrams? Maybe if you have enough money and sign a lot of paperwork, I don't know, I've never looked into it as I have no desire to own one. But, you can in fact own a tank, there are hundreds of them out there in personal ownership.

 

[thraashman]

Not much to discuss about the topic tho, if only the officers had more guns they would have been fine.

Remember, according to the NRA, the best way for people to not get shot by cops illegally breaking into their homes and shooting them, is to shoot cops. Everyone should just have a gun and shoot everyone else, then no one gets shot or something according to NRA logic.

 

[ecogen]

No one argues that the 2A covers anything but firearms. That has been the known interpretation since the ink was still wet on the paper.

You can own a tank, your comment was that you cannot, the reality is you can with a working gun and all. Can you buy an Abrams? Maybe if you have enough money and sign a lot of paperwork, I don't know, I've never looked into it as I have no desire to own one. But, you can in fact own a tank, there are hundreds of them out there in personal ownership.

Bullshit. Plenty of people make that argument, and during the time it was written people privately owned warships and cannons. And if we're going by the originalism your ilk seems to adore I don't see why we should interpret arms as firearms. Stop injecting your own personal bias into the constitution.

So you don't know. Unless you can buy every tank in existence fully operable and with ammo then that's a restriction.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Bullshit. Plenty of people make that argument, and during the time it was written people privately owned warships and cannons. And if we're going by the originalism your ilk seems to adore I don't see why we should interpret arms as firearms. Stop injecting your own personal bias into the constitution.

So you don't know. Unless you can buy every tank in existence fully operable and with ammo then that's a restriction.

If you want to fight for us to have the right to own nuclear weapons and nuclear subs, then have at it. But, I think that you'll find that you are in fact the one out on an island alone in your interpretation of the 2A.

 

[ecogen]

If you want to fight for us to have the right to own nuclear weapons and nuclear subs, then have at it. But, I think that you'll find that you are in fact the one out on an island alone in your interpretation of the 2A.

Nope. Arms means arms, why do you hate the constitution?

 

[thraashman]

No one argues that the 2A covers anything but firearms. That has been the known interpretation since the ink was still wet on the paper.

Actually for about the first 200 years the interpretation was overwhelmingly that it is a collective right and not an individual one. You know, because it explicitly mentions being in a militia being integral in bearing arms.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Actually for about the first 200 years the interpretation was overwhelmingly that it is a collective right and not an individual one. You know, because it explicitly mentions being in a militia being integral in bearing arms.

Right, I cannot join our milita if needed if we don't have arms. The right to firearms is an individual right for a collective societal need.

 

[Blackjack200]

If you want to fight for us to have the right to own nuclear weapons and nuclear subs, then have at it. But, I think that you'll find that you are in fact the one out on an island alone in your interpretation of the 2A.

Damn dude, why do you love killing cops so much?

 

[ecogen]

Right, I cannot join our milita if needed if we don't have arms. The right to firearms is an individual right for a collective societal need.

The right to arms, not firearms. Stop desecrating the constitution.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Damn dude, why do you love killing cops so much?

I don't like that at all. I don't understand your comment.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The right to arms, not firearms. Stop desecrating the constitution.

I've already told you, if you feel that strongly about it then go fight for it, but I don't think you'll find much popular support for your incorrect interpretation of the constitution. Arms is not ordinance.

 

[ecogen]

I've already told you, if you feel that strongly about it then go fight for it, but I don't think you'll find much popular support for your incorrect interpretation of the constitution. Arms is not ordinance.

If the founding fathers wanted to write firearms they would have done so. Are you calling the founding fathers stupid? Why do you hate America?

 

[SlowSpyder]

If the founding fathers wanted to write firearms they would have done so. Are you calling the founding fathers stupid? Why do you hate America?

No, the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing, it is you that might be the stupid one. Again, arms does not equate to ordinance.

My newest handgun holds 30 rounds in the magazine. Pretty cool, eh?

 

[shortylickens]

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT?!!???

 

[ecogen]

No, the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing, it is you that might be the stupid one. Again, arms does not equate to ordinance.

My newest handgun holds 30 rounds in the magazine. Pretty cool, eh?

I agree.

Definition of arms from the Oxford Dictionary: Weapons; armaments.

A nuke is a weapon. You know we call them nuclear arms right?

So again, are you calling the Founding Fathers idiots that didn't know the proper definition of the word arms? Why are you so Un-American?

 

[soundforbjt]

My newest handgun holds 30 rounds in the magazine. Pretty cool, eh?

Must be hard to carry in your pocket.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Must be hard to carry in your pocket.

It is maybe slightly big for the pocket, but it is certainly easy to carry holstered. Mostly polymer, weighs very little.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I agree.

Definition of arms from the Oxford Dictionary: Weapons; armaments.

A nuke is a weapon. You know we call them nuclear arms right?

So again, are you calling the Founding Fathers idiots that didn't know the proper definition of the word arms? Why are you so Un-American?

You can post about this all you want, but the reality is you're on an island by yourself with your interpretation. That's just reality, you're creating a caricature to argue against that ha nothing to do with reality, and think you're winning some kind of debate.

 

[ecogen]

You can post about this all you want, but the reality is you're on an island by yourself with your interpretation. That's just reality, you're creating a caricature to argue against that ha nothing to do with reality, and think you're winning some kind of debate.

No debate. This isn't an argument, the wording of the 2A is clear and the definition of the word arms is also clear.

It's just you here shitting on the constitution by interpreting things however you want to. What are you some kind of America hating liberal commie?

 

[thraashman]

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT?!!???

Honestly I lost track a long time ago. I just enjoy joining in telling SlowSpyder he's an idiot.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No debate. This isn't an argument, the wording of the 2A is clear and the definition of the word arms is also clear.

It's just you here shitting on the constitution by interpreting things however you want to. What are you some kind of America hating liberal commie?

Like I said, if you think the 2A covers nuclear arms then by all means go for it, but I think you'll find you alone have that interpretation. Repeating firearms existed as early as 1597 (almost 200 years before the 2A was authored) as far as I am aware and the authors of the constitution were well versed in military technology.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Honestly I lost track a long time ago. I just enjoy joining in telling SlowSpyder he's an idiot.

Yes, I'm arguing that the 2A doesn't cover nuclear arms and I'm the idiot. Carry on AT P&N.

 

[ecogen]

Like I said, if you think the 2A covers nuclear arms then by all means go for it, but I think you'll find you alone have that interpretation. Repeating firearms existed as early as 1597 (almost 200 years before the 2A was authored) as far as I am aware and the authors of the constitution were well versed in military technology.

What I think has nothing to do with it. The founding fathers wrote arms, not firearms, arms. Can you please take your UnAmerican attitude somewhere else? We don't need more people that hate the US and the constitution we have plenty of commie libs in this board already.

 

[SlowSpyder]

What I think has nothing to do with it. The founding fathers wrote arms, not firearms, arms. Can you please take your UnAmerican attitude somewhere else? We don't need more people that hate the US and the constitution we have plenty of commie libs in this board already.

You've already lost this argument. If you think the founding fathers were covering nuclear bombs with the 2A, I don't know what to tell you. Good luck on your crusade.