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

[Tom]

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.

No, you can't read. "hold as one's own" specifically implies non-ownership.

 

[fskimospy]

Ordinance in military terms generally means bombs and shells.

And in military terms arms means all weapons generally. Hence, when we ask people to 'lay down their arms', we don't mean 'drop your rifle, but feel free to keep using the howitzer'.

This is a silly argument. All rights guaranteed in the Constitution are subject to reasonable restriction, because if they weren't our society would be unable to function. As I'm sure has already been mentioned in relation to the OP's ridiculous point, the first amendment contains no mention of any restriction on speech whatsoever, but all rational people can see why there's a need to restrict speech that leads to imminent physical danger for people, etc.

It's because all rights guaranteed in the Constitution are a balance between the specific right of that person, and the rights of others around him along with the duties of the government. The purpose of the government is (at its most basic level) to ensure that the country is a safe and orderly place for people to conduct their business. Two neighbors threatening each other with guns is bad, but manageable. Two people across the country threatening to nuke each other's respective cities would not be a manageable concern, hence why we have limits on arms.

Is this really that difficult?

 

[Scotteq]

So what about the 'tiny cricket' from MiB?

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

So - You are actually using an imaginary weapon from the Men In Black movie to try to make a real point?


My counterpoint is very simple: You are clearly out of your mind and not worth speaking to if this is the level of asininity you would stoop to in order to "Not Be Wrong".

 

[irishScott]

And in military terms arms means all weapons generally. Hence, when we ask people to 'lay down their arms', we don't mean 'drop your rifle, but feel free to keep using the howitzer'.

This is a silly argument. All rights guaranteed in the Constitution are subject to reasonable restriction, because if they weren't our society would be unable to function. As I'm sure has already been mentioned in relation to the OP's ridiculous point, the first amendment contains no mention of any restriction on speech whatsoever, but all rational people can see why there's a need to restrict speech that leads to imminent physical danger for people, etc.

It's because all rights guaranteed in the Constitution are a balance between the specific right of that person, and the rights of others around him along with the duties of the government. The purpose of the government is (at its most basic level) to ensure that the country is a safe and orderly place for people to conduct their business. Two neighbors threatening each other with guns is bad, but manageable. Two people across the country threatening to nuke each other's respective cities would not be a manageable concern, hence why we have limits on arms.

Is this really that difficult?

"Bu...bu...bu... I CAN READ THE DICTIONARY!!!!!" -Tom

 

[Zebo]

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.

Not all. Hamma massacre by Assad fixed their insurgency. But yeah in general since the 1950s anti insurgency is based on targeted militants instead of population which is a fail because militants don't care if they die, the civilians they protect do. In the past entire towns were wiped out to get countries unconditional surrender. e.g Japan.

 

[Scotteq]

And in military terms arms means all weapons generally. Hence, when we ask people to 'lay down their arms', we don't mean 'drop your rifle, but feel free to keep using the howitzer'.

<big snip>

I completely agree it's a stupid argument.

 

[HumblePie]

No, you can't read. "hold as one's own" specifically implies non-ownership.

And how exactly does, how as one's own imply "non-ownership?" You are stupid here. It specifically implies ownership. You can not keep something as your own and NOT OWN IT. Otherwise it would be stealing moron. The hold as one's own was a connotation usage for the word keep. You are so dense not see how English works I'm very amazed right now at how obtuse you are being here.

Now I know you are being a troll.

Main Entry: own
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: possess; be responsible for
Synonyms: be in possession of, be possessed of, boast, control, dominate, enjoy, fall heir to, have, have in hand, have rights, have title, hold, inherit, keep, occupy, reserve, retain
Antonyms: dispossess, lack, lose, need, not have, sell

Look there, keep is a synonym for own.

You do understand proper English and it's usage I hope? Actually, I know you don't if you are trying to argue this semantic. There is not an English teacher in the known WORLD that would agree with your statement that the words keep and own do not mean the same thing. They may be different words but they have the exact same root meaning. They are different only in their application moron. Seriously, get beyond 3rd grade English next time before you argue this point.

Also, 200 years ago, the way English was used was sometimes very different than now. In many contexts, it was much more "flowery" as people of higher learning were encouraged to use an expanded vocabulary compared with today.



Now if you were trying to argue your whole stance on the 2nd amendment based off what constitutes a "militia" then you could argue that word, connotation, and applications from a Constitutional standpoint until the cows come home and you would be neither right nor wrong usually. The fact you picked the wrong thing to argue, been proven wrong, and keep arguing to not accept the fact proves YOU ARE A TROLL.

 

[jonks]

So - You are actually using an imaginary weapon from the Men In Black movie to try to make a real point?


My counterpoint is very simple: You are clearly out of your mind and not worth speaking to if this is the level of asininity you would stoop to in order to "Not Be Wrong".

The assault rifle was an imaginary weapon when the 2nd amendment was drafted. I think i pose a reasonable question. If you don't want to answer it, say so. The point is clear, at some point handguns may (likely will) be able to cause much more damage than they do now. What would it take for you to not classify a handgun capable of such damage as "arms"?

Sidenote: the OP opened with a ridiculous premise on constitutional interpretation. The first amendment contains absolutly zero exception clauses. The right to freedom of speech shall not be abridged. Yet nearly everyone agrees there are limits and exceptions in certain circumstances. Just b/c the founders didn't put anything about falsely yelling fire in crowded theater in the document doesn't mean placing some reasonable limit is prima facie unconstitutional.

Also, I think you'd be surprised where I stand on gun rights.

 

[classy]

The problem with the second amendment is we have been forced to truly interpret the boundaries of its power and the true intent of the amendment. Our constitution was written right after the Revolutionary War, so many of the amendments were written to establish the US as a free country. With that was still a very real possibility of being taken over again by the British. It was completely necessary to make sure all citizens were armed to be readily prepare to face a very real threat. We know what it says, but it fails to contrast if those same meanings were meant for a people against its own government.

To there lies the struggle. There is no denying that they clearly meant to ensure all people have the right to bear arms, but to what extent is really unknown. Honestly I don't know if they were alive today if they would have written it differently. I do believe a deeper clarification would certainly be available though.

 

[xj0hnx]

And in military terms arms means all weapons generally. Hence, when we ask people to 'lay down their arms', we don't mean 'drop your rifle, but feel free to keep using the howitzer'.

This is a silly argument. All rights guaranteed in the Constitution are subject to reasonable restriction, because if they weren't our society would be unable to function. As I'm sure has already been mentioned in relation to the OP's ridiculous point, the first amendment contains no mention of any restriction on speech whatsoever, but all rational people can see why there's a need to restrict speech that leads to imminent physical danger for people, etc.

It's because all rights guaranteed in the Constitution are a balance between the specific right of that person, and the rights of others around him along with the duties of the government. The purpose of the government is (at its most basic level) to ensure that the country is a safe and orderly place for people to conduct their business. Two neighbors threatening each other with guns is bad, but manageable. Two people across the country threatening to nuke each other's respective cities would not be a manageable concern, hence why we have limits on arms.

Is this really that difficult?

The military differentiates between small arms, ordnance, etc...the terms are interchangeable in context, but only dishonest people try what you and Mr. Tom are trying.

The original intent of the Second was that the citizens have the means to resist a tyranny. Only in the last not even century have the semantics been employed to disarm the populace. In order for the people to maintain a government of the people, by the people, for the people it must also maintain a way to insure that the government can not take their freedoms.

 

[nick1985]

The assault rifle was an imaginary weapon when the 2nd amendment was drafted.

And I bet your definition of an assault rifle differs from the ATF's. Assault rifles are full-auto or select-fire weapons, and require extra red-tape(ATF tax stamp) in order to obtain.

Your definition is anything that looks scary

 

[fskimospy]

The military differentiates between small arms, ordnance, etc...the terms are interchangeable in context, but only dishonest people try what you and Mr. Tom are trying.

The original intent of the Second was that the citizens have the means to resist a tyranny. Only in the last not even century have the semantics been employed to disarm the populace. In order for the people to maintain a government of the people, by the people, for the people it must also maintain a way to insure that the government can not take their freedoms.

Yes, they differentiate between 'small arms' and 'ordinance'. 'Small arms' is NOT equivalent to 'arms' however, which is a general term for ALL weaponry. Saying that the military refers to rifles, etc as 'arms' but does not extend that definition to heavier weaponry is simply factually wrong. So, with the actual definition of 'arms' in mind, clearly we can all see how these rights must be taken as rational human beings, and not as absolutes. Right?

As I have said before, the specter of an armed citizenry bravely beating back the tyrannical government, Red Dawn style, is not what keeps it at bay. It's our institutions.

 

[HumblePie]

And I bet your definition of an assault rifle differs from the ATF's. Assault rifles are full-auto or select-fire weapons, and require extra red-tape(ATF tax stamp) in order to obtain.

Your definition is anything that looks scary

LOL exactly. And yes, they had auto fire back then as well. Auto fire is the exact definition of an assault weapon.

 

[Scotteq]

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."

So - You are actually using an imaginary weapon from the Men In Black movie to try to make a real point?


My counterpoint is very simple: You are clearly out of your mind and not worth speaking to if this is the level of asininity you would stoop to in order to "Not Be Wrong".

The assault rifle was an imaginary weapon when the 2nd amendment was drafted. I think i pose a reasonable question. If you don't want to answer it, say so. The point is clear, at some point handguns may (likely will) be able to cause much more damage than they do now. What would it take for you to not classify a handgun capable of such damage as "arms"?

Sidenote: the OP opened with a ridiculous premise on constitutional interpretation. The first amendment contains absolutly zero exception clauses. The right to freedom of speech shall not be abridged. Yet nearly everyone agrees there are limits and exceptions in certain circumstances. Just b/c the founders didn't put anything about falsely yelling fire in crowded theater in the document doesn't mean placing some reasonable limit is prima facie unconstitutional.

Also, I think you'd be surprised where I stand on gun rights.

I'm not disagreeing that a Handgun is (small) "Arms".

I am disagreeing that it's "Ordnance"***. Which was the original question... At least until you decided to change it.


And I'll repeat what I said earlier: It's a stupid argument.



***Edit: There is another definition, btw, which states that the difference between Arms and Ordnance is whether or not an individual can carry it. i.e. An M2 .50 cal machine gun is "Arms", but a .40mm AAA gun is "Ordnance".

 

[qliveur]

No, you can't read. "hold as one's own" specifically implies non-ownership.

LOL

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Japan owned a small part of China with 50,000 troops and never actually exerted complete control over large swaths of that area, while their principle antagonist was fighting a civil war within itself.

Not equivalent. Your ideas about insurgency are not backed up by reality.

 

[xj0hnx]

Yes, they differentiate between 'small arms' and 'ordinance'. 'Small arms' is NOT equivalent to 'arms' however, which is a general term for ALL weaponry. Saying that the military refers to rifles, etc as 'arms' but does not extend that definition to heavier weaponry is simply factually wrong. So, with the actual definition of 'arms' in mind, clearly we can all see how these rights must be taken as rational human beings, and not as absolutes. Right?

As I have said before, the specter of an armed citizenry bravely beating back the tyrannical government, Red Dawn style, is not what keeps it at bay. It's our institutions.

I just said they do, in CONTEXT, a word that seems to have escaped, but do you actually have a point? Our institutions are slowly falling apart, and unless politicians stop worrying about petty issues like whether or not Billy Bob can have a 75 round drum for his AK, and get to actually fixing those institutions they won't be keeping the sheep in line for much longer.

 

[qliveur]

Waitaminute.

"Japan owned China with 50,000 troops."

In what century?

 

[Zebo]

The problem with the second amendment is we have been forced to truly interpret the boundaries of its power and the true intent of the amendment. Our constitution was written right after the Revolutionary War, so many of the amendments were written to establish the US as a free country. With that was still a very real possibility of being taken over again by the British. It was completely necessary to make sure all citizens were armed to be readily prepare to face a very real threat. We know what it says, but it fails to contrast if those same meanings were meant for a people against its own government.

To there lies the struggle. There is no denying that they clearly meant to ensure all people have the right to bear arms, but to what extent is really unknown. Honestly I don't know if they were alive today if they would have written it differently. I do believe a deeper clarification would certainly be available though.

If you have a problem with it change it. We can abolish the whole Constitution if we want going through the correct paperwork. Amendment process. Not with unconstitutional legislation.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

And I bet your definition of an assault rifle differs from the ATF's. Assault rifles are full-auto or select-fire weapons, and require extra red-tape(ATF tax stamp) in order to obtain.

Your definition is anything that looks scary

And there were high capacity rifles back then.

The Girandoni rifle held 20-28 shots per magazine/tank.

 

[fskimospy]

I just said they do, in CONTEXT, a word that seems to have escaped, but do you actually have a point? Our institutions are slowly falling apart, and unless politicians stop worrying about petty issues like whether or not Billy Bob can have a 75 round drum for his AK, and get to actually fixing those institutions they won't be keeping the sheep in line for much longer.

No, the word means the same thing no matter what context. My point is that people are trying to argue that 'arms' as listed in the 2nd amendment refers to only rifles, etc, and not nuclear weapons because that's what 'arms' means. It does not, and even at the time the constitution was drafted the word did not mean simply a musket.

The institutions that prevent the overthrow of the democratic order are working just fine.

 

[nick1985]

The institutions that prevent the overthrow of the democratic order are working just fine.

Are you insinuating that the people do not have a right to be armed?

 

[Tom]

And how exactly does, how as one's own imply "non-ownership?" You are stupid here. It specifically implies ownership. You can not keep something as your own and NOT OWN IT. Otherwise it would be stealing moron. The hold as one's own was a connotation usage for the word keep. You are so dense not see how English works I'm very amazed right now at how obtuse you are being here.

Now I know you are being a troll.

Main Entry: own
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: possess; be responsible for
Synonyms: be in possession of, be possessed of, boast, control, dominate, enjoy, fall heir to, have, have in hand, have rights, have title, hold, inherit, keep, occupy, reserve, retain
Antonyms: dispossess, lack, lose, need, not have, sell

Look there, keep is a synonym for own.

You do understand proper English and it's usage I hope? Actually, I know you don't if you are trying to argue this semantic. There is not an English teacher in the known WORLD that would agree with your statement that the words keep and own do not mean the same thing. They may be different words but they have the exact same root meaning. They are different only in their application moron. Seriously, get beyond 3rd grade English next time before you argue this point.

Also, 200 years ago, the way English was used was sometimes very different than now. In many contexts, it was much more "flowery" as people of higher learning were encouraged to use an expanded vocabulary compared with today.



Now if you were trying to argue your whole stance on the 2nd amendment based off what constitutes a "militia" then you could argue that word, connotation, and applications from a Constitutional standpoint until the cows come home and you would be neither right nor wrong usually. The fact you picked the wrong thing to argue, been proven wrong, and keep arguing to not accept the fact proves YOU ARE A TROLL.

Why the need for "as your own" for something you own ? Short answer, there is no need for the qualifier for something you own, because you own it. As your own implies treating something you don't own as if you do own it.

Another example that you can't read is you keep associating my comments with some sort of position on my part vis a vi gun ownership when I've stated numerous times I'm not talking about gun ownership at all.

 

[Zebo]

Japan owned a small part of China with 50,000 troops and never actually exerted complete control over large swaths of that area, while their principle antagonist was fighting a civil war within itself.

Not equivalent. Your ideas about insurgency are not backed up by reality.

They are not my ideas. All the way back to Alexander the Great insurgents have been irrelevant. Just study the second boar war or any of Genghis khans exploits or colonialism for that matter. Irrelevant short lived insurgencies always dealt with same way.

 

[nick1985]

Why the need for "as your own" for something you own ? Short answer, there is no need for the qualifier for something you own, because you own it. As your own implies treating something you don't own as if you do own it.

Another example that you can't read is you keep associating my comments with some sort of position on my part vis a vi gun ownership when I've stated numerous times I'm not talking about gun ownership at all.

Lets have a debate. Tom Vs. the founding Fathers.





Tom, please retort to these founderss:



Please respond to Mr. Madison:

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." ---James Madison



Please respond to Mr. Adams:

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" ---Samual Adams


Please respond to Patrick Henry:

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." ---Patrick Henry


Please respond to Mr. Johnson

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." --Zachariah Johnson


Please respond to Mr. Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson


Please respond to Mr. Washington

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" --George Washington