GUNS

Sort:
Avatar of llama47

The fact that you can't think beyond "truth is justified as true by the fact that it's been written on a piece of paper" may be pretty typical of religious fundamentalists, and not technically a mental disorder...

but, it's just... I wouldn't be too proud of being mentally well on a technicality.

Avatar of UnclePeet
And your knowledge of the constitution is a joke, just stop.

This has been upheld again and again and again.

Hay I wonder why, if THATS what the framers meant and only a MILITIA could have guns, that the citizens(damn near ALL of them) HAD GUNS WHILE THE FRAMERS WERE STILL ALIVE AND. OT ONE OF THEM SAID “Hey! It’s supposed to be for militias!”.

But if COURSE they didn’t. Because that’s not what it means.

In fact average citizens were able to purchase CANNONS.
Avatar of UnclePeet
Your obviously a fool with no knowledge of the subject or any of the cases that led to its definition. Sure you could look them up on the internet and copy paste but you have no idea of their existence otherwise.

People like you would have us yelling at the top of our lungs to communicate because “it says free SPEECH. Telephones aren’t really speech the founders couldnt have envisioned them!”
Avatar of llama47
UnclePeet wrote:
And your knowledge of the constitution is a joke, just stop.

This has been upheld again and again and again.

Hay I wonder why, if THATS what the framers meant and only a MILITIA could have guns, that the citizens(damn near ALL of them) HAD GUNS WHILE THE FRAMERS WERE STILL ALIVE AND. OT ONE OF THEM SAID “Hey! It’s supposed to be for militias!”.

But if COURSE they didn’t. Because that’s not what it means.

In fact average citizens were able to purchase CANNONS.

Yes, it's been upheld by judges like Scalia who comically identified as an originalist while  applying very creative interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

Avatar of UnclePeet
This person is so uniformed he believes that the framers effectively banned everyone from hunting back then by saying only militias could have gun.

It’s beyond absurd!
Avatar of UnclePeet
WHAT ABOUT FOR THE 200 YEARS BEFORE SCALIA?
Avatar of llama47
UnclePeet wrote:
Your obviously a fool with no knowledge of the subject 

Your avatar wears a Trump shirt and you type in all caps... what do you want me to say?

Avatar of ericthatwho
 

llama45 your disorder (distorted truth) is a product of your feeble imagination. You should check-in to the rest home now and give your mind a brake. Its cracking

Avatar of UnclePeet
It’s very simple:

Of the founders meant ONLY for militias to have weapons then why did the average citizens nearly ALL have guns while the founders were still alive and nobody said anything?

It’s a very simple question.

Furthermore nearly ALL Americans hunted for food at that time. Well over 90%.

Are you saying the founders removed the ability of 90% of Americans to obtain food?

Really?

You seriously have not thought about this deeply or have only talked about it with people who share your view.
Avatar of llama47

My concept of it is, the 2nd amendment doesn't set an upper limit, it sets a lower one. So if everyone owns guns, the 2nd amendment doesn't care one way or another. It only cares when the government tries to deny guns to people who own them as part of a well organized militia.

Avatar of TheHarbingerOfDoom
I don’t think uncle is listening to what was actually said. Taking half a statement and changing the rest to suit his purpose. What a moron.
Avatar of UnclePeet
Harbinger you are, beyond any shadow of doubt, the stupidest person to comment on this subject.

You have absolutely no idea angrier about it’s intricacies and just show up from time to time saying “YEAH!”
Avatar of KyloAPPROVES

I dunno about "moron". When guns get banned you'd be pretty screwed If someone breaks into your house with a black-marketed gun. unless you have a legal alternative to a pocket knife.

Avatar of UnclePeet
"the right of the people." When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia.

Read Heller for gods sake
Avatar of UnclePeet
Criminals would never give up their guns Kylo. You are correct.

Just like now. Drugs are banned and the law abiding citizens obey while criminals have no problem getting drugs and carrying them and using them.

When you regulate guns the only people who you disarm are law abiding citizens. Criminals operate outside the law.
Avatar of llama47
UnclePeet wrote:
"the right of the people." When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia.

Read Heller for gods sake

Well, again, I don't think guns should be banned, I think there should be sensible regulations.

Most people agree on that, but gun lobbyists have money, and the government is controlled by money, not the will of the people.

Avatar of batgirl
UnclePeet wrote:
This person is so uniformed . . .
It’s beyond absurd!

Women like a man in uniform 

Avatar of KyloAPPROVES

Guys like uniforms too

Avatar of KyloAPPROVES

Makes them feel official

Avatar of UnclePeet
Yes see I can take a joke Batgirl, well timed
This forum topic has been locked