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

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

Nope … its your lack of understand both of what constitutes an arm as it relates to the Constitution and of the arms themselves.

Correction: what you think constitutes an arm as it relates to the Constitution and of the arms themselves. I’ve read how the founders referred to arms and what sort of equipment they expected a militia to have.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

Sure you are. You are posing as a thinker. That is thinking that the 2nd Amendment needs to be rewritten to clarify it shows a complete lack of knowledge both on the roots of the Amendment and of the contemporary (to 1789) meaning of the words the founders used in writing it. You are wrong. The words and the meaning are perfectly clear just as they are.

Yet even the Buckeye Firearms Association disagrees with you and there’s a long line of legal scholars who have argued about the meaning of the 2nd. If it was perfectly clear then this wouldn’t be the case and you’d be able to point to an actual codified definition of arms as they relate to the second amendment.

Some thinking might do you good.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

My point is that the 2nd amendment’s meaning isn’t cut and dry and that a literal interpretation allows for the ownership and use of pretty much any weapon.

It’s perfectly cut and dried. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can continue in your haze to argue about what you believe is an arm, but those of us who understand the meaning in that context, are not confused about it in the least.

What you think is the meaning in that context is worthless because its just your opinion, that’s why I’ve repeatedly requested actual legal definitions of these words.

I’ve seen nothing to imply that the common understand of the word arms back then was limited to only guns that you can operate by yourself, can carry all the ammo by yourself, and don’t cause explosions.

“Issued to the individual soldier for offensive and defense use in battle” is all you need to know.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

Nope … its your lack of understand both of what constitutes an arm as it relates to the Constitution and of the arms themselves.

Correction: what you think constitutes an arm as it relates to the Constitution and of the arms themselves. I’ve read how the founders referred to arms and what sort of equipment they expected a militia to have.

Nope. It’s a matter of long standing precedent. It’s not like I just came up with my own interpretation … like you did.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

Sure you are. You are posing as a thinker. That is thinking that the 2nd Amendment needs to be rewritten to clarify it shows a complete lack of knowledge both on the roots of the Amendment and of the contemporary (to 1789) meaning of the words the founders used in writing it. You are wrong. The words and the meaning are perfectly clear just as they are.

Yet even the Buckeye Firearms Association disagrees with you and there’s a long line of legal scholars who have argued about the meaning of the 2nd. If it was perfectly clear then this wouldn’t be the case and you’d be able to point to an actual codified definition of arms as they relate to the second amendment.

Some thinking might do you good.

Buckeye Firearms Association?

[Samm]

There ya go … Google has spoken.

[WuWei]

@fallenturtle

@WuWei

Bull feathers. You’re terrified.

I’m not. In fact I think you’re terrified.

@WuWei

No it isn’t. Your business ends at your fence line unless you are harmed. You got no say what I do anywhere else. Mind your own business.

We’re a republic.

Why would I be? I have a gun and know how to run it.

Exactly.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

Nope … its your lack of understand both of what constitutes an arm as it relates to the Constitution and of the arms themselves.

Correction: what you think constitutes an arm as it relates to the Constitution and of the arms themselves. I’ve read how the founders referred to arms and what sort of equipment they expected a militia to have.

Nope. It’s a matter of long standing precedent. It’s not like I just came up with my own interpretation … like you did.

It seems like you’re just parroting someone else’s interpretation.

Is that long standing precedent documented somewhere?

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

Sure you are. You are posing as a thinker. That is thinking that the 2nd Amendment needs to be rewritten to clarify it shows a complete lack of knowledge both on the roots of the Amendment and of the contemporary (to 1789) meaning of the words the founders used in writing it. You are wrong. The words and the meaning are perfectly clear just as they are.

Yet even the Buckeye Firearms Association disagrees with you and there’s a long line of legal scholars who have argued about the meaning of the 2nd. If it was perfectly clear then this wouldn’t be the case and you’d be able to point to an actual codified definition of arms as they relate to the second amendment.

Some thinking might do you good.

Buckeye Firearms Association?

Your anti-Ohio bias is showing.

[fallenturtle]

Duck duck go also didn’t come up with any results. So where did that sentence come from?

[fallenturtle]

@WuWei

Why would I be? I have a gun and know how to run it.

You’re terrified that the populace is going to modify the 2nd amendment and/or restrict your access to guns.

[WuWei]

@fallenturtle

@WuWei

Why would I be? I have a gun and know how to run it.

You’re terrified that the populace is going to modify the 2nd amendment and/or restrict your access to guns.

Oh no. The “populace” has no say in my rights. They’re mine. You don’t get to make criminals out of millions of people because you’re scurred of the blackplasticthingy. Mind your own business.

[fallenturtle]

@WuWei

Oh no. The “populace” has no say in my rights. They’re mine.

Do you deny that our constitution has an amendment process?

@WuWei

scurred of the blackplasticthingy

Are you having a stroke?

@WuWei

Mind your own business.

I am.

[WuWei]

@fallenturtle

Do you deny that our constitution has an amendment process?

Amend it then. You won’t like the outcome.

@fallenturtle

I am.

What I keep and bear is not your business.

[altair1013]

@fallenturtle

The 2nd applies equally to all of us.

It used to. The wokies are working hard to ban as much speech they don’t like as they can. And their big tech minions are doing their best to assist.

[fallenturtle]

@WuWei

Amend it then. You won’t like the outcome.

If there are enough people to pass an amendment to modify the 2nd amendment to better define which arms and ammo it protects then you won’t have enough people to defeat the US military.

@WuWei

What I keep and bear is not your business.

What’s my business is my business. Mind your own business.

[fallenturtle]

@altair1013

@fallenturtle

The 2nd applies equally to all of us.

It used to. The wokies are working hard to ban as much speech they don’t like as they can. And their big tech minions are doing their best to assist.

That’s the first amendment you’re thinking of. Also they aren’t. No speech has been banned.

[altair1013]

@fallenturtle

@altair1013

It used to. The wokies are working hard to ban as much speech they don’t like as they can. And their big tech minions are doing their best to assist.

That’s the first amendment you’re thinking of.

It is. My mistake. Thanks for the feedback.

[WuWei]

@fallenturtle

If there are enough people to pass an amendment to modify the 2nd amendment to better define which arms and ammo it protects then you won’t have enough people to defeat the US military.

[WuWei]

@fallenturtle

What’s my business is my business.

What I keep and bear ain’t. It’s got nothing to do with you.