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

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Not so cut and dry:

“Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.” -Scalia

And what did he decide?

I don’t believe he did… but the fact that he didn’t say flat out that it doesn’t pretty much proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Odd, that appears to be what you’re doing.

My interpretation of the definition is the same as it has been for 230 years. In other words, it’s not my definition, it is the definition.

Your definition isn’t even documented. The definition I’ve been using, from Black’s Law, is.

How many times are you going to do this?

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

You never gave it to me in the first place.

Yes I did. This is not our first rodeo.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Odd, that appears to be what you’re doing.

My interpretation of the definition is the same as it has been for 230 years. In other words, it’s not my definition, it is the definition.

Your definition isn’t even documented. The definition I’ve been using, from Black’s Law, is.

How many times are you going to do this?

Until you admit you’re wrong or provide a source that shows I’m wrong.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

You never gave it to me in the first place.

Yes I did. This is not our first rodeo.

So you claim.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Not so cut and dry:

“Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.” -Scalia

And what did he decide?

I don’t believe he did… but the fact that he didn’t say flat out that it doesn’t pretty much proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong.

So it’s a moot point. That’s what I thought.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

You never gave it to me in the first place.

Yes I did. This is not our first rodeo.

So you claim.

Yep. And it’s true.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Not so cut and dry:

“Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.” -Scalia

And what did he decide?

I don’t believe he did… but the fact that he didn’t say flat out that it doesn’t pretty much proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong.

So it’s a moot point. That’s what I thought.

It’s not a moot point. It proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong. How could there be if a pro-gun Supreme Court justice says… I dunno, we’ll need to look into it? Was Scalia wrong?

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

You never gave it to me in the first place.

Yes I did. This is not our first rodeo.

So you claim.

Yep. And it’s true.

I’m fairly certain you’re gaslighting me. Considering how easy it would be to prove me wrong pretty much cements that. You’ve spent more time claiming you provided a documented legal definition of arms then it would take googling and posting it. I’ve even tried googling it and haven’t found it. Therefore I think you’re full of it. If you can prove me wrong I will be more than happy to apologize to you.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Not so cut and dry:

“Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.” -Scalia

And what did he decide?

I don’t believe he did… but the fact that he didn’t say flat out that it doesn’t pretty much proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong.

So it’s a moot point. That’s what I thought.

It’s not a moot point. It proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong. How could there be if a pro-gun Supreme Court justice says… I dunno, we’ll need to look into it? Was Scalia wrong?

Scalia was musing, not ruling.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

You never gave it to me in the first place.

Yes I did. This is not our first rodeo.

So you claim.

Yep. And it’s true.

I’m fairly certain you’re gaslighting me. Considering how easy it would be to prove me wrong pretty much cements that. You’ve spent more time claiming you provided a documented legal definition of arms then it would take googling and posting it. I’ve even tried googling it and haven’t found it. Therefore I think you’re full of it. If you can prove me wrong I will be more than happy to apologize to you.

Think whatever you want. I’m still not going to play your silly game.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Not so cut and dry:

“Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.” -Scalia

And what did he decide?

I don’t believe he did… but the fact that he didn’t say flat out that it doesn’t pretty much proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong.

So it’s a moot point. That’s what I thought.

It’s not a moot point. It proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong. How could there be if a pro-gun Supreme Court justice says… I dunno, we’ll need to look into it? Was Scalia wrong?

Scalia was musing, not ruling.

I’m also musing and not ruling. That doesn’t change anything. If the answer was cut and dry like you keep trying to insist there would be nothing to muse about.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

You never gave it to me in the first place.

Yes I did. This is not our first rodeo.

So you claim.

Yep. And it’s true.

I’m fairly certain you’re gaslighting me. Considering how easy it would be to prove me wrong pretty much cements that. You’ve spent more time claiming you provided a documented legal definition of arms then it would take googling and posting it. I’ve even tried googling it and haven’t found it. Therefore I think you’re full of it. If you can prove me wrong I will be more than happy to apologize to you.

Think whatever you want. I’m still not going to play your silly game.

Silly game? You’re the one who wants me to play “go hunt down the post that doesn’t exist”.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Not so cut and dry:

“Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.” -Scalia

And what did he decide?

I don’t believe he did… but the fact that he didn’t say flat out that it doesn’t pretty much proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong.

So it’s a moot point. That’s what I thought.

It’s not a moot point. It proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong. How could there be if a pro-gun Supreme Court justice says… I dunno, we’ll need to look into it? Was Scalia wrong?

Scalia was musing, not ruling.

I’m also musing and not ruling. That doesn’t change anything. If the answer was cut and dry like you keep trying to insist there would be nothing to muse about.

You’re not musing, you’re making it up.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

You never gave it to me in the first place.

Yes I did. This is not our first rodeo.

So you claim.

Yep. And it’s true.

I’m fairly certain you’re gaslighting me. Considering how easy it would be to prove me wrong pretty much cements that. You’ve spent more time claiming you provided a documented legal definition of arms then it would take googling and posting it. I’ve even tried googling it and haven’t found it. Therefore I think you’re full of it. If you can prove me wrong I will be more than happy to apologize to you.

Think whatever you want. I’m still not going to play your silly game.

Silly game? You’re the one who wants me to play “go hunt down the post that doesn’t exist”.

You won’t know until you do. Don’t you think that’s silly?

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Not so cut and dry:

“Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.” -Scalia

And what did he decide?

I don’t believe he did… but the fact that he didn’t say flat out that it doesn’t pretty much proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong.

So it’s a moot point. That’s what I thought.

It’s not a moot point. It proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong. How could there be if a pro-gun Supreme Court justice says… I dunno, we’ll need to look into it? Was Scalia wrong?

Scalia was musing, not ruling.

I’m also musing and not ruling. That doesn’t change anything. If the answer was cut and dry like you keep trying to insist there would be nothing to muse about.

You’re not musing, you’re making it up.

You’re projecting. I’ve provided a law dictionary, a quote from a supreme court justice, and an essay from a pro-gun group and you’ve provided nothing.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Not so cut and dry:

“Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.” -Scalia

And what did he decide?

I don’t believe he did… but the fact that he didn’t say flat out that it doesn’t pretty much proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong.

So it’s a moot point. That’s what I thought.

It’s not a moot point. It proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong. How could there be if a pro-gun Supreme Court justice says… I dunno, we’ll need to look into it? Was Scalia wrong?

Scalia was musing, not ruling.

I’m also musing and not ruling. That doesn’t change anything. If the answer was cut and dry like you keep trying to insist there would be nothing to muse about.

You’re not musing, you’re making it up.

You’re projecting. I’ve provided a law dictionary, a quote from a supreme court justice, and an essay from a pro-gun group and you’ve provided nothing.

Either you don’t know what projecting means … or are you making up a new definition of that too.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Not so cut and dry:

“Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.” -Scalia

And what did he decide?

I don’t believe he did… but the fact that he didn’t say flat out that it doesn’t pretty much proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong.

So it’s a moot point. That’s what I thought.

It’s not a moot point. It proves your claim that there’s a clear and established legal definition of arms to be wrong. How could there be if a pro-gun Supreme Court justice says… I dunno, we’ll need to look into it? Was Scalia wrong?

Scalia was musing, not ruling.

I’m also musing and not ruling. That doesn’t change anything. If the answer was cut and dry like you keep trying to insist there would be nothing to muse about.

You’re not musing, you’re making it up.

You’re projecting. I’ve provided a law dictionary, a quote from a supreme court justice, and an essay from a pro-gun group and you’ve provided nothing.

Either you don’t know what projecting means … or are you making up a new definition of that too.

I’m using the standard one. You’re accusing me of making it up when its you who appears to be making things up.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

I’m using the standard one. You’re accusing me of making it up when its you who appears to be making things up.

You’re using the modern instead of the contemporary one in 1789. The words in the Constitution bear the definition they had at the time they were written.

[Samm]

You have been provided with the facts. I cannot be held responsible for your refusal to accept them.