Where in the 2nd amendment does it say "for sporting or hunting purposes"?

[xj0hnx]

Where does it say in the 2nd amendment that you can't own a nuclear weapon?

That dumb, third grade argument has already been thoroughly debunk, adn destroyed, thanks for playing though.

 

[Unheard]

Problem is our pea shooters won't do much. Just gas resistive areas until they roll their militants in the next area, they buy a clue eventually. We need better if we're going to go up against some crazed General Ripper

Ya, hows that going for us in Iraq and Afganistan. Those primitive weapons have no effect on our invincible soldiers.

 

[xj0hnx]

They still let people have guns in CA?:whiste:

In 1986 just before the 1986 FOPA, California and Texas where the two states with the highest sales of machine guns before the ban on civilian market manufacture went into effect.

 

[xj0hnx]

Ya, hows that going for us in Iraq and Afganistan. Those primitive weapons have no effect on our invincible soldiers.

Yip. I've seen a 55 gallon fuel bomb IED take out an Abraham. Didn't blow it up, but it was a napalm base and the it burned it to a pile of rubble.

 

[Zebo]

I disagree with you.

The founders disagree with you.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

So does the dictionary. But you can't fix stupid.

 

[Zebo]

Ya, hows that going for us in Iraq and Afganistan. Those primitive weapons have no effect on our invincible soldiers.

We don't use 1/10th of power or weapons we could bring. We fight with mittens on. Putting our men on the street and such. If we drained the swamp war would be over in days.

 

[irishScott]

The best argument against magazine capacity restrictions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI (Yes I know it's a magazine, not my video)

Also keep in mind we won WWII with the standard rifle firing 8 rounds, and handgun firing 7+1.

Limiting magazine capacity is just the next step toward an outright gun ban, which unfortunately has popular support in the major cities, as the only exposure to guns in cities is gang/drug/mafia wars. I'm willing to bet most of that 74% have never even held a gun.

 

[xj0hnx]

We don't use 1/10th of power or weapons we could bring. We fight with mittens on. Putting our men on the street and such. If we drained the swamp war would be over in days.

Very true, but if you think we fight with mittens on over there, how do you think our citizen soldiers are going to handle war on their own people? Not all units are going to fall in line with the government if there were ever a civil war in this country. It would also surprise some people here some of the things that civilians can legally buy. I'll see if I can find the link that for a mere $250,000 one can purchase a fully legal, civilian transferable 40mm(?) remote controlled anti aircraft gun ...full auto of course.

 

[Zebo]

Very true, but if you think we fight with mittens on over there, how do you think our citizen soldiers are going to handle war on their own people? Not all units are going to fall in line with the government if there were ever a civil war in this country. It would also surprise some people here some of the things that civilians can legally buy. I'll see if I can find the link that for a mere $250,000 one can purchase a fully legal, civilian transferable 40mm(?) remote controlled anti aircraft gun ...full auto of course.

Well that was not the scenario but a bunch of Nazis took over and purged the ranks. Just imagine AQ in charge of our military if that will help. History is full of quickly failed insurgencies until about the 1950s because before that they just eliminated whole towns until you complied/submitted.

 

[xj0hnx]

Well that was not the scenario but a bunch of Nazis took over and purged the ranks. Just imagine AQ in charge of our military if that will help. History is full of quickly failed insurgencies until about the 1950s because before that they just eliminated whole towns until you complied/submitted.

That was before "Hearts and Minds".

 

[Tom]

Uh oh, the thinly veiled race card, now it's about protecting our "lily white daughters". You have now been relegated to the bin of mindless oafs.





Tom you are either being very stupid, or just purely dishonest, which is it?

I'm not being either. Words have particular meaning. In a document as important as a founding document that meaning is even more important to pay attention too.

The word "keep" doesn't mean "own". That's just a simple fact. I have said nothing about the significance of that fact as it pertains to gun ownership.

I haven't said anything about the legality of gun ownership. This topic is about the meaning of words as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Zebo]

Bottom line is if the govt is ever really threatening us, nothing we can do about it with current armament.

Three scenarios
1. The mixed force will wait out the militants not wanting to kill their own unless necessary. They can wait forever behind fortifications against rifles and make enroads as they will. no stopping our 800lb gorilla just like in iraq.
2. A radical force takes over military and pea shooters do nothing against full firepower
3. Military will fight amongst itself and civilians arms have no effect against Jets

Either way it's futile.

 

[BoberFett]

Has anyone ever actually said that or did you just make it up?

Can you read? This fool implied it right here. He says if everyone is packing everyone is going to pull out their gun and everyone is going to get shot. If that's not what he's implying, then what exactly is his point?

I live in NYC. Can you imagine the following situation:

You are in a crowded subway train. Everyone is packing heat. A crazy person goes crazy and tries to pull his gun out. People get scared. About 10 people pull out their weapons to shoot this idiot down.

What happens next?

Can you explain to me how arming every American (sane and insane) is a good thing?

 

[irishScott]

I'm not being either. Words have particular meaning. In a document as important as a founding document that meaning is even more important to pay attention too.

The word "keep" doesn't mean "own". That's just a simple fact. I have said nothing about the significance of that fact as it pertains to gun ownership.

I haven't said anything about the legality of gun ownership. This topic is about the meaning of words as far as I'm concerned.

Great. So I have the right to have the gov buy my guns for me and give me them for free? After all, "arms" is plural. Why I'll just call up the ATF and sue them under the 2nd amendment if I don't have an M4 and an M9 on my porch within a week along with the ability to carry it wherever I want.

Remember, since you want to debate semantics, that I have a "right" to "keep" something, these rights are enforced by the "government". Therefore by your logic the government has a responsibility to enforce my right to keep and bear arms.

 

[jonks]

That dumb, third grade argument has already been thoroughly debunk, adn destroyed, thanks for playing though.

A distinction without a difference if there ever was one. It's only a juvenile distinction to someone incapable of extrapolating. What's the magic point when arms becomes ordnance?

Also, numerous 2nd amd purists hold to no such distinction so the 'dumb third grade argument' inhabits the right as well.

 

[irishScott]

A distinction without a difference if there ever was one. It's only a juvenile distinction to someone incapable of extrapolating. What's the magic point when arms becomes ordnance?

Depends on the technology. Ordnance could generally be defined as anything designed to create area-effect damage via internal explosive force. I'm sure there are holes in that definition and I'm too lazy to draft a hypothetical legal code, but you get the idea. Anything that goes "boom" from an internal source. Same reason incendiary rounds are illegal.

 

[Scotteq]

A distinction without a difference if there ever was one. It's only a juvenile distinction to someone incapable of extrapolating. What's the magic point when arms becomes ordnance?

Ordinance in military terms generally means bombs and shells.

 

[nick1985]

I'm not being either. Words have particular meaning. In a document as important as a founding document that meaning is even more important to pay attention too.

The word "keep" doesn't mean "own". That's just a simple fact. I have said nothing about the significance of that fact as it pertains to gun ownership.

I haven't said anything about the legality of gun ownership. This topic is about the meaning of words as far as I'm concerned.

Again, the founding fathers and the Supreme Court disagree with you.

Please address this.

 

[BoberFett]

Military will fight amongst itself and civilians arms have no effect against Jets

Come on Z, you're smarter than that. You don't have to shoot down down a jet with your sidearm. In fact any revolution that intends to win a stand up fight doesn't deserve to be called a revolution. You attack the supply lines. Destroy fuel trucks. Kill suppliers. Employees sabotage production lines. Go after soft targets that are nonetheless crucial to the functioning of a massive military apparatus. There's strength in numbers, and 100M armed people will win no matter what kind of toys the military has.

 

[HumblePie]

I'm not being either. Words have particular meaning. In a document as important as a founding document that meaning is even more important to pay attention too.

The word "keep" doesn't mean "own". That's just a simple fact. I have said nothing about the significance of that fact as it pertains to gun ownership.

I haven't said anything about the legality of gun ownership. This topic is about the meaning of words as far as I'm concerned.

You sir are retarded if you don't think Keep means Own.

THE VERY FIRST ENTRY IN THE DICTIONARY FOR THE WORD KEEP.


keep
   /kip/ Show Spelled [keep] Show IPA verb, kept, keep·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.
to hold or retain in one's possession; hold as one's own: If you like it, keep it. Keep the change.


Keep = TO OWN.

You are being vapid troll now.

 

[Zebo]

I'm not being either. Words have particular meaning. In a document as important as a founding document that meaning is even more important to pay attention too.

The word "keep" doesn't mean "own". That's just a simple fact. I have said nothing about the significance of that fact as it pertains to gun ownership.

I haven't said anything about the legality of gun ownership. This topic is about the meaning of words as far as I'm concerned.

If you can't infringe one from bearing how can they not own them? But I like where you're going with this, free permanent rentals from .gov. I want a dillion minigun.

 

[Tom]

Great. So I have the right to have the gov buy my guns for me and give me them for free? After all, "arms" is plural. Why I'll just call up the ATF and sue them under the 2nd amendment if I don't have an M4 and a M9 on my porch within a week along with the ability to carry it wherever I want.

Remember, sense you want to debate semantics, that I have a "right" to "keep" something, these rights are enforced by the "government". Therefore by your logic the government has a responsibility to enforce my right to keep and bear arms.

You could be right about that. I'm not joking, a proper interpretation could include just what you are saying, that for the purpose of having a militia the state could be required to provide weapons to all citizens.

But my point again isn't to argue for or against guns, my point is more general. That there are literal words with very particular meanings that don't necessariy mean what we think they mean. The Constitution doesn't say "hunting", it also doesn't say "own".

 

[jonks]

Ordinance in military terms generally means bombs and shells.

So what about the 'tiny cricket' from MiB?

My point is really very simple, every 'right' comes with an * that says "see exceptions/limitations."

 

[fskimospy]

Well that was not the scenario but a bunch of Nazis took over and purged the ranks. Just imagine AQ in charge of our military if that will help. History is full of quickly failed insurgencies until about the 1950s because before that they just eliminated whole towns until you complied/submitted.

Wait, you think that insurgencies were more successful in the 20th century because the countries of the world got soft? Where on earth did you get that idea?

There's a consistent theme of 'we just need to REALLY get serious and then we'll win' among people who have zero clue how the military or global strategy works. (hint: these conflicts aren't just about the country they take place in) Even ignoring the catastrophic geopolitical consequences of doing that, you would require the mobilization of ten times the manpower and ten times the money only to burn the place you are occupying to the ground even if you were successful.

By that logic we should just nuke people and save a lot of cash. Hopefully I don't need to explain why that's an awful idea.

 

[Zebo]

Come on Z, you're smarter than that. You don't have to shoot down down a jet with your sidearm. In fact any revolution that intends to win a stand up fight doesn't deserve to be called a revolution. You attack the supply lines. Destroy fuel trucks. Kill suppliers. Employees sabotage production lines. Go after soft targets that are nonetheless crucial to the functioning of a massive military apparatus. There's strength in numbers, and 100M armed people will win no matter what kind of toys the military has.

Really? what happens when they gas Indy and say you're next if even one of our soldiers gets shot patrolling the streets? Are you willing to risk your family? Not me I'd roll you and I'm sure most of your neighbors would too. This is not complicated it's been done before. Japan owned China with like 50,000 troops. If you're willing to get medieval resistance is futile.