Walmart shooting

[Vigilante]

@Samm

@Vigilante

Such postulating BS.

Ooo … another new word! Also used wrong, but I applaud the effort.

Oops you’re right on one. I meant to write pustulating. Thank you Grammer and Spelling Police. Ride what ya brung

[Samm]

@mobulis

@westaussie

What does arm mean in the context of 2A?

It depends on peoples interpretation.

No it doesn’t. In the context of the Constitution, an arm is any weapon used offensively or defensively that is carried and used by an individual soldier. It is the broader interpretations that are used today (by people such as yourself) that are questionable.

[westaussie]

I was being sarcastic as you would know. Guns kill people. I hope that clears any difficulties you have understanding my posts.

[westaussie]

Weapon. Would an AR 17 be one such weapon?

[Samm]

@westaussie

Maybe they should just ban bullets in toto.

Unconstitutional. Bullets are integral to the function of firearms. Their possession and use are protected by the 2nd exactly as are the right to keep and bear guns.

[westaussie]

Congratulations. If you accept the rather tenuous conclusion you have drawn, one bullet fulfills the “function of firearms” requirement.

[Samm]

@Vigilante

@Samm

@Vigilante

Such postulating BS.

Ooo … another new word! Also used wrong, but I applaud the effort.

Oops you’re right on one. I meant to write pustulating. Thank you Grammer and Spelling Police. Ride what ya brung

You didn’t misspell it, you used the wrong word wrong. And had you typed pustulating, the use of that word would have been just as wrong. But you do get kudos for trying.

[Vigilante]

It takes a flame to light a cig.

[Samm]

@westaussie

I was being sarcastic as you would know. Guns kill people. I hope that clears any difficulties you have understanding my posts.

Awh … and I was just beginning to have hope for you.

Guns kill people like keyboards write words … only with the action of humans.

[mobulis]

@Samm

@mobulis

@westaussie

What does arm mean in the context of 2A?

It depends on peoples interpretation.

No it doesn’t. In the context of the Constitution, an arm is any weapon used offensively or defensively that is carried and used by an individual soldier. It is the broader interpretations that are used today (by people such as yourself) that are questionable.

Nope still depends on peoples interpretation. If it didn’t there wouldn’t be any arguing about it

[Samm]

@westaussie

Weapon. Would an AR 17 be one such weapon?

Of course. I’m not sure which AR 17 you are referring to, but they are all designed to be carried and used by an individual.

[Samm]

@westaussie

Congratulations. If you accept the rather tenuous conclusion you have drawn, one bullet fulfills the “function of firearms” requirement.

Yes, but once that bullet has been fired, another must replace it to fulfill the functioning requirement. No matter how you twist reason, the fact remains that ammunition is as protected by the Constitution as are the tools that fire it.

[Samm]

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

@westaussie

What does arm mean in the context of 2A?

It depends on peoples interpretation.

No it doesn’t. In the context of the Constitution, an arm is any weapon used offensively or defensively that is carried and used by an individual soldier. It is the broader interpretations that are used today (by people such as yourself) that are questionable.

Nope still depends on peoples interpretation. If it didn’t there wouldn’t be any arguing about it

People argue about it because they are ignorant of the meaning of the words when they were written down and ratified. And to continue to argue after being educated is nothing but willful ignorance. Ignorance can be forgiven; willful ignorance cannot.

[westaussie]

Ah there’s the rub. Limiting the capacity of a magazine to one bullet fulfills the requirement of the constitution of the USA as you have confirmed in your post.

[westaussie]

For the record the AR 17 was a typo; it should have been AR 15.

[mobulis]

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

@westaussie

What does arm mean in the context of 2A?

It depends on peoples interpretation.

No it doesn’t. In the context of the Constitution, an arm is any weapon used offensively or defensively that is carried and used by an individual soldier. It is the broader interpretations that are used today (by people such as yourself) that are questionable.

Nope still depends on peoples interpretation. If it didn’t there wouldn’t be any arguing about it

People argue about it because they are ignorant of the meaning of the words when they were written down and ratified. And to continue to argue after being educated is nothing but willful ignorance. Ignorance can be forgiven; willful ignorance cannot.

So not agreeing with YOUR interpretation of the 2nd is “willful ignorance”. Got it.

[Samm]

@westaussie

Ah there’s the rub. Limiting the capacity of a magazine to one bullet fulfills the requirement of the constitution of the USA as you have confirmed in your post.

It’s not a rub, it’s a reality.

And my post did not confirm your distortion of that reality. There is no intellectual Constitutional argument to limit the ammunition capacity of a firearm magazine to one (or 5, or 10, or 20 …) that will pass legal muster.

[Samm]

Same answer. Both are arms as referred to in the 2nd Amendment.

[Samm]

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

@westaussie

What does arm mean in the context of 2A?

It depends on peoples interpretation.

No it doesn’t. In the context of the Constitution, an arm is any weapon used offensively or defensively that is carried and used by an individual soldier. It is the broader interpretations that are used today (by people such as yourself) that are questionable.

Nope still depends on peoples interpretation. If it didn’t there wouldn’t be any arguing about it

People argue about it because they are ignorant of the meaning of the words when they were written down and ratified. And to continue to argue after being educated is nothing but willful ignorance. Ignorance can be forgiven; willful ignorance cannot.

So not agreeing with YOUR interpretation of the 2nd is “willful ignorance”. Got it.

You have been informed of the facts (not my interpretation,) yet you continue to ignore them. That is willful ignorance.

[mobulis]

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

@Samm

@mobulis

@westaussie

What does arm mean in the context of 2A?

It depends on peoples interpretation.

No it doesn’t. In the context of the Constitution, an arm is any weapon used offensively or defensively that is carried and used by an individual soldier. It is the broader interpretations that are used today (by people such as yourself) that are questionable.

Nope still depends on peoples interpretation. If it didn’t there wouldn’t be any arguing about it

People argue about it because they are ignorant of the meaning of the words when they were written down and ratified. And to continue to argue after being educated is nothing but willful ignorance. Ignorance can be forgiven; willful ignorance cannot.

So not agreeing with YOUR interpretation of the 2nd is “willful ignorance”. Got it.

You have been informed of the facts (not my interpretation,) yet you continue to ignore them. That is willful ignorance.

So any hand grenade, man portable rocket launcher. Cool