Gun control

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
The irony here is low-iron Robert Francis not understanding exactly what happened in this exchange of tweetfire. In the slight chance Robert Francis did understand what kind of response his tweet would get and still tweeted it it's quite the self-own/Dem-own.

True, he won't get the nom, but his mindset is the same as whoever turns out to be the nom.

Again, which of the two parties is currently acting all fascist and promising all these fascist promises to the voters? (This is a rhetorical question.)

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Arms...easily defined and well defined, going back many centuries:

Today the word “arms” refers collectively to offensive or defensive weapons. The word’s meaning has changed little since it was first used seven hundred years ago. It’s definition has never restricted civilian use of military weapons, including when the Second Amendment was approved.
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/06/30/what-does-the-word-arms-mean-in-the-2nd-amendment/

At the time the 2nd was approved, there was not a single solitary restriction on the ownership of arms of any kind and it was never anticipated...even forbidden, as is the intent of the 2A in the first place, that they every should or would be.

Ironically, perhaps, I'm not aware of a single arm or armament that existed at the time the 2A was adopted that is not still OK for civilians to own now. So therefore...
140756
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
Since the terms "Shall not be infringed" seem to be specifically stated and defined.....

Can someone specifically define the term "arms?"

:oldman:
Good question
But what did the word “arms” mean at the time?

Today the word “arms” refers collectively to offensive or defensive weapons. The word’s meaning has changed little since it was first used seven hundred years ago. It’s definition has never restricted civilian use of military weapons, including when the Second Amendment was approved.

“Arms” comes from Middle English and originated from the Old French word “armes,” which meantweapons of a warrior.” This word dates back to 1300. “Arms” also originates from the Latin word for “weapons,”arma.” This word was also first used in the 14th Century.

(On a side-note, the word “firearms” popped up around 1640 to describe weapons that used gunpowder compared to other arms like bows and arrows)

It’s clear the meaning allowed for a very broad definition of what constituted “arms.” The Bill of Rights of 1689 states that the “subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

The last part of the sentence is very telling. It’s a conditional phrase meant to limit the type of “arms’ allowed by Protestant subjects. The limitation imposed meant that the word “arms” had a definition permitting a very wide range of weapons including those the document’s authors decided could be restricted by law.

From this we can conclude that the word “arms” referred to weapons found among contemporary military arsenals.

In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
"Regulate until it's meaningless!" was the Democrat plan 35 years ago.

It hasn't changed.
It is more like 150+ years ago. The Dems have never owned up; so to speak. For example...the Dems started the KKK, slaves were sold into slavery by their own kind, and blacks owned slaves, too, in the US. It is truly awful that our history is being rewritten. So much for honesty. It is all disgusting. If one cannot learn from that, I don’t know what to say. God bless the USA. Speaking of slaves, please listen to what these Dems are saying. Y’all don’t want that, Trust me.

I wonder if Columbus would regret, now, that he discovered America,
 
Last edited:

22AcaciaAve

Active Member
Just to point out the stunningly obvious:

The Constitution does NOT "specifically state" that you have a right to own an AR15.

And the point out the even more stunningly obvious:

Beto O'Rourke isn't going to win the nomination. Neither is Castro. Why do you give a sh!t what they say?

Bernie Sanders is the scary option among the top tier candidates...Warren next concerning...Biden is the least worrisome from a policy point of view.

And Trump, well he is just a buffoon who relies of the support of those like you--too stupid to actually look anything up or so blinded by their resources and desperate to self-rationalize their vote that they can't tell facts from propaganda.
Of course it doesn't. The AR15 did not exist when the constitution was written. The 2nd amendment, whether you agree or disagree with it, does not make a distinction on which firearms are allowed or not allowed. That would be a decision for the SCOTUS. What O'Rourke did was actually give the Republicans some good ammo for the next election. Democrats always claimed that Repubs were paranoid that Obama was going to take their guns. He never said that nor attempted it. O'Rourke has now actually crossed that line. Wait and see how that will play out in the next election. Everything the NRA has been saying that democrats would do, no democrat has ever done. Beto has just confirmed he would do it. Guess how that will be filtered down on whomever wins the nomination. Democrats should do whatever they can to eliminate him from the race immediately. His words will be played over and over again and haunt the eventual nominee.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Beto has said what he would TRY to do.
The rest of them would TRY to do the same thing.

TRYING and doing are two separate things.
 
Reactions: BOP

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
Good question
So, going by what you have posted.. all forms of arms are ok to posses. However, there is no specific definition of "how many." So, if you want to go by the definition... 2 weapons could be considered "arms." So, if every household happens to have 2 knives.... they have "arms."

:oldman:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So, going by what you have posted.. all forms of arms are ok to posses. However, there is no specific definition of "how many." So, if you want to go by the definition... 2 weapons could be considered "arms." So, if every household happens to have 2 knives.... they have "arms."

:oldman:
That's certainly an argument that could be made. I see no implicit nor explicit limit in the constitution, though.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
What's up with high school history teachers that they no longer educate their students on the Bill of Rights?

Beatoff says he'd take our guns by force.
A TX state rep replies, “My AR is ready for you Robert Francis”
Beta starts sobbing "DEATH THREAT!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHHH!" and his mindless bots proceed to lose their hivemind as well.

?

This is what the 2nd Amendment was specifically created for: when a fascist government tries to subjugate We the People, we can fight back. It's #2, to protect #1.

I find it stunning that so many are ignorant of their rights in this country, and why those things are specifically stated in our Constitution.
Wait, why is Skateboard Jesus worried about death threats? Doesn't he have tax-payer funded SS protection?
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
Of course it doesn't. The AR15 did not exist when the constitution was written. The 2nd amendment, whether you agree or disagree with it, does not make a distinction on which firearms are allowed or not allowed. That would be a decision for the SCOTUS. What O'Rourke did was actually give the Republicans some good ammo for the next election. Democrats always claimed that Repubs were paranoid that Obama was going to take their guns. He never said that nor attempted it. O'Rourke has now actually crossed that line. Wait and see how that will play out in the next election. Everything the NRA has been saying that democrats would do, no democrat has ever done. Beto has just confirmed he would do it. Guess how that will be filtered down on whomever wins the nomination. Democrats should do whatever they can to eliminate him from the race immediately. His words will be played over and over again and haunt the eventual nominee.
Actually, it's not. SCOTUS exists to clarify the law and to ensure the law is based on and conforms to the Constitution of the United States. They are not there to selectively interpret the law based on changing standards, values, and mores.
 

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
Actually, it's not. SCOTUS exists to clarify the law and to ensure the law is based on and conforms to the Constitution of the United States. They are not there to selectively interpret the law based on changing standards, values, and mores.
Someone needs to do a bit of light reading:

"As the final arbiter of the law, the Supreme Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Someone needs to do a bit of light reading:

"As the final arbiter of the law, the Supreme Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."
What BOP said: "to ensure the law is based on and conforms to the Constitution of the United States. ".

No lo comprende much?
 

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
What BOP said: "to ensure the law is based on and conforms to the Constitution of the United States. ".

No lo comprende much?
As a self-imposed history expert.. I am surprised you deny the actual job of SCOTUS. Its not that hard to comprehend. Part of their job is to interpret the Constitution. As opposed to:
They are not there to selectively interpret the law based on changing standards, values, and mores.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Someone needs to do a bit of light reading:

"As the final arbiter of the law, the Supreme Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."
You're talking about what the supreme court decided the supreme court's authority is, not stated anywhere in the constitution.
 

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
You're talking about what the supreme court decided the supreme court's authority is, not stated anywhere in the constitution.
I would urge you to look up "nullification".
Move the goal posts all you want. The bottom line is that the responsibility and JOB of the SCOTUS is to "Guard and interpret the Constitution." Which was stated earlier is NOT the job of the SCOTUS.

Not hard... someone posted a false fact. I proved it was false. End of story.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Actually, it's not. SCOTUS exists to clarify the law and to ensure the law is based on and conforms to the Constitution of the United States. They are not there to selectively interpret the law based on changing standards, values, and mores.
Ah, you are citing what the position of a "conservative" justice would be. A strict constitutionalist. Liberal judges seek to modernize, to expand the role of government by a more liberal interpretation of the constitution. For example, they are not going to look at the historic definition of militia, rather they would say it that well regulated militia is today's National Guard.
Where as the framers saw it in just the opposite light. But few study the constitution and the say the federalist papers.
The authors were clear, the well regulated militia was your everyday civilian, who was law abiding. The reason they wanted arms was to protect them from the tyranny of the government. You remember they just got done fighting the King's army
 
Reactions: BOP

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Move the goal posts all you want. The bottom line is that the responsibility and JOB of the SCOTUS is to "Guard and interpret the Constitution." Which was stated earlier is NOT the job of the SCOTUS.

Not hard... someone posted a false fact. I proved it was false. End of story.
:killingme
 
Top