Yes Biden. The second amendment does include AR-15s

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

I have defended my view of the Second Amendment consistently and accurately in this thread and in every other similar discussion for many years. And my argument is just as applicable to the foreseeable future as it is for the past and present. Your making up fanciful and unrealistic hypotheticals doesn’t relate to a rational discussion. It’s purely an esoteric conversation when you do that. In other words, it becomes meaningless.

You’ve done an excellent job defending the second amendment up to today. The future, not so much.

@Samm

But I do appreciate that you recognize that I can’t lose.

That’s not always a good thing.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Did you not use the word “arms” when providing the codified definition of arms that’s to be used for 2nd amendment cases?, because its not showing up in the thread search.

I don’t follow. What are you asking?

Where does the US law say the definition of the 2nd amendment is based on “contemporary military jargon”? Where’s the official legal definition. I tried looking up some military dictionaries, but they didn’t have a definition for arms on their own.

Though it does beg the question on the soundness of basing constitutional rights on something as fluid as contemporary military jargon.

[amadeus]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

I have defended my view of the Second Amendment consistently and accurately in this thread and in every other similar discussion for many years. And my argument is just as applicable to the foreseeable future as it is for the past and present. Your making up fanciful and unrealistic hypotheticals doesn’t relate to a rational discussion. It’s purely an esoteric conversation when you do that. In other words, it becomes meaningless.

You’ve done an excellent job defending the second amendment up to today. The future, not so much.

@Samm

But I do appreciate that you recognize that I can’t lose.

That’s not always a good thing.

We’re all safer the more guns people have, right? It’s a well known law of nature. And the future? Well, prediction is difficult . . . especially about the future.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

You’ve done an excellent job defending the second amendment up to today. The future, not so much.

My argument hasn’t changed. It’s the same today as it has always been.

[WuWei]

@amadeus

We’re all safer the more guns people have, right? It’s a well known law of nature. And the future? Well, prediction is difficult . . . especially about the future.

I’m not responsible for your “safety”.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

You’ve done an excellent job defending the second amendment up to today. The future, not so much.

My argument hasn’t changed. It’s the same today as it has always been.

So no limits on the amount of firepower a civilian may own the means to produce and wield.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

That’s not always a good thing.

True, but in this case it is … if you would only concede and quit hypothesizing so that you can carry on.

[WuWei]

@fallenturtle

So no limits on the amount of firepower a civilian may own the means to produce and weld.

I am opposed to welding firepower.

[amadeus]

@WuWei

@amadeus

We’re all safer the more guns people have, right? It’s a well known law of nature. And the future? Well, prediction is difficult . . . especially about the future.

I’m not responsible for your “safety”.

Good for you. And I hope to never have my safety in your hands.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Did you not use the word “arms” when providing the codified definition of arms that’s to be used for 2nd amendment cases?, because its not showing up in the thread search.

I don’t follow. What are you asking?

Where does the US law say the definition of the 2nd amendment is based on “contemporary military jargon”? Where’s the official legal definition. I tried looking up some military dictionaries, but they didn’t have a definition for arms on their own.

Though it does beg the question on the soundness of basing constitutional rights on something as fluid as contemporary military jargon.

It doesn’t have to. Where in US Law does it say that about the definition of words in any Document.

[WuWei]

@amadeus

@WuWei

@amadeus

We’re all safer the more guns people have, right? It’s a well known law of nature. And the future? Well, prediction is difficult . . . especially about the future.

I’m not responsible for your “safety”.

Good for you. And I hope to never have my safety in your hands.

It won’t be. I owe you nothing.

[Samm]

@amadeus

We’re all safer the more guns people have, right? It’s a well known law of nature. And the future? Well, prediction is difficult . . . especially about the future.

Another left turn. If you want to give up freedom for the illusion of safety, be my guest. But don’t impose your fear on me or anyone else who you are not personally responsible for.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

You’ve done an excellent job defending the second amendment up to today. The future, not so much.

My argument hasn’t changed. It’s the same today as it has always been.

So no limits on the amount of firepower a civilian may own the means to produce and wield.

When did I say that?

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Did you not use the word “arms” when providing the codified definition of arms that’s to be used for 2nd amendment cases?, because its not showing up in the thread search.

I don’t follow. What are you asking?

Where does the US law say the definition of the 2nd amendment is based on “contemporary military jargon”? Where’s the official legal definition. I tried looking up some military dictionaries, but they didn’t have a definition for arms on their own.

Though it does beg the question on the soundness of basing constitutional rights on something as fluid as contemporary military jargon.

It doesn’t have to. Where in US Law does it say that about the definition of words in any Document.

I provided the definition from Black’s law and you implied it was wrong. How can we discuss what are or aren’t arms if we can’t agree to a common definition?

[amadeus]

@Samm

@amadeus

We’re all safer the more guns people have, right? It’s a well known law of nature. And the future? Well, prediction is difficult . . . especially about the future.

Another left turn. If you want to give up freedom for the illusion of safety, be my guest. But don’t impose your fear on me or anyone else who you are not personally responsible for.

You seem like the fearful one. Projection is a wonderful thing.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

You’ve done an excellent job defending the second amendment up to today. The future, not so much.

My argument hasn’t changed. It’s the same today as it has always been.

So no limits on the amount of firepower a civilian may own the means to produce and wield.

When did I say that?

Guess I’m mixing up your opinion with somebody else’s. My bad.

[amadeus]

@WuWei

@amadeus

@WuWei

@amadeus

We’re all safer the more guns people have, right? It’s a well known law of nature. And the future? Well, prediction is difficult . . . especially about the future.

I’m not responsible for your “safety”.

Good for you. And I hope to never have my safety in your hands.

It won’t be. I owe you nothing.

So now we’re both on the same page. I complete you in that regard. I feel the same way. We’re like, I don’t know, two peas in a pod. Hugs.

[WuWei]

Make sure you go yourself the next time there’s a call.

[amadeus]

@WuWei

Make sure you go yourself the next time there’s a call.

Whatever that means. But, yeah, OK. Hugs.

[zantax]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

You’ve done an excellent job defending the second amendment up to today. The future, not so much.

My argument hasn’t changed. It’s the same today as it has always been.

So no limits on the amount of firepower a civilian may own the means to produce and wield.

If you are worried about future weapons, arms are the least of your worries. Think CRISPR