Kamala Harris owns a gun. Are you surprised or mad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals think the Second Amendment was written just after the Founding Fathers just finished a 2-week hunting excursion...

It was written after they just finished fighting a tyrannical government in 1791, just years after the Revolutionary War.

Shall not be infringed.

"well regulated militia"

1) Not interpreted as an individual right till modern times.

2) The amount of gun crime and ease of straw purchasing makes the current status of "well regulated" questionable

3) Modern weapons mean individuals would need to own nukes, missiles, etc. to have the power to counteract the government. Nobody wants that and if you do, you're a lunatic and should have your sanity evaluated.

The Founders fought their government. Our entire country (the colonies) fought their government.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776


“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

You know the maga(t)s have lost when they start pulling out scripts written like 400 years ago by dead white men who owned slaves.



YOU LOST MAGA!!!! SUCK IT!!!!

Seriously. You want to used these quotes to defend your stance? Then you have the right bear all arms that were available to you in 1776.

Just the 1A only applies to the printing press.

Remarkable that one amendment can adapt with evolving society and not another, isn’t it? It’s almost like one of them is the bread and butter of a gian$ lo$$y organi$ation and g$n manu$acture$.

Still crickets from the gun nuts here.

Since you seem to think the 1A covers inventions postdating the printing press, I see no reason that the 2A can't also cover modern armaments. The 2A did evolve much like the 1A and like the 1A it didn't become more narrow in scope.

Yes or no: should 2a cover individual right for mosr common citizens to own nuclear weapons or weapons with a similar scale of destruction? Able to wipe out an entire city in one go. No snark, straightforward yes or no answer.

Yes, it covers those weapons as written. I believe courts have since decided that there are limits to the 2A and even the 1A. However, I can't expect to have nuanced discussion with the black and white thinkers in this thread.

Do you personally agree with courts that under 2a, there are limits such as individual right to own a nuclear weapon that could destroy a city?

Their is no limit. Constition would have to be amended for a limit. So yes citizens can have nukes.

And do you personally agree then that the constitution is correct to allow individual citizens to possess nukes?

The 2nd amendment offers no prohibition against nukes. Most 8th graders world-wide and even some in the US could build the delivery mechanism. The challenge is in acquiring/producing the required fissionable material to make a working nuke. Those materials are controlled in the US, so for reasons outside of the 2nd amendment a person could not legally possess a working nuke in the US.

You avoided the actual question.

The question is moot. One cannot legally posses the materials the make a working nuke in the US. If people could not possess metal or plastic in the US then they could not possess AR-15s under the 2nd amendment.

Isn't it a violation of the 2nd amendment to prevent individuals from making nukes? Banning those materials prevents individuals from protection against tyranny under 2a.

No it isn’t. 49ers game is on, so I need to take a break from working to improve your logic and critical thinking skills. Hopefully someone else will fill the void.

How condescending of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So gun nutters are literal about the 2nd amendment except for the militia part and choose to just ignore the change in technology. Got it. You’ve twisted yourself into a pretzel to defend your love of killing machines. Cherry picking to justify the indefensible. No other civilized society lives like this and it’s all to make the NRA and gun manufacturers rich.

Apples to oranges poster is correct. But that thinking is too complex for gun nuts.

Guns are not killing machines. The person pulling the trigger is a killing machine.

Sincerely,

Deplorable gun nutter

Guns are designed to kill. Just a basic fact.

The 2024 Olympics had 15 events involving guns to include pistols, rifles and shotguns. So guns are also designed for sport and competition. Just a basic fact.

Games came later but fine. You can have your shooting ranges. You just have to check your guns in and out like ice skates. Sick that this is more important to you than children being massacred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals think the Second Amendment was written just after the Founding Fathers just finished a 2-week hunting excursion...

It was written after they just finished fighting a tyrannical government in 1791, just years after the Revolutionary War.

Shall not be infringed.

"well regulated militia"

1) Not interpreted as an individual right till modern times.

2) The amount of gun crime and ease of straw purchasing makes the current status of "well regulated" questionable

3) Modern weapons mean individuals would need to own nukes, missiles, etc. to have the power to counteract the government. Nobody wants that and if you do, you're a lunatic and should have your sanity evaluated.

The Founders fought their government. Our entire country (the colonies) fought their government.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776


“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

You know the maga(t)s have lost when they start pulling out scripts written like 400 years ago by dead white men who owned slaves.



YOU LOST MAGA!!!! SUCK IT!!!!

Seriously. You want to used these quotes to defend your stance? Then you have the right bear all arms that were available to you in 1776.

Just the 1A only applies to the printing press.

Remarkable that one amendment can adapt with evolving society and not another, isn’t it? It’s almost like one of them is the bread and butter of a gian$ lo$$y organi$ation and g$n manu$acture$.

Still crickets from the gun nuts here.

Since you seem to think the 1A covers inventions postdating the printing press, I see no reason that the 2A can't also cover modern armaments. The 2A did evolve much like the 1A and like the 1A it didn't become more narrow in scope.

Yes or no: should 2a cover individual right for mosr common citizens to own nuclear weapons or weapons with a similar scale of destruction? Able to wipe out an entire city in one go. No snark, straightforward yes or no answer.

Yes, it covers those weapons as written. I believe courts have since decided that there are limits to the 2A and even the 1A. However, I can't expect to have nuanced discussion with the black and white thinkers in this thread.

Do you personally agree with courts that under 2a, there are limits such as individual right to own a nuclear weapon that could destroy a city?

Their is no limit. Constition would have to be amended for a limit. So yes citizens can have nukes.

And do you personally agree then that the constitution is correct to allow individual citizens to possess nukes?

The 2nd amendment offers no prohibition against nukes. Most 8th graders world-wide and even some in the US could build the delivery mechanism. The challenge is in acquiring/producing the required fissionable material to make a working nuke. Those materials are controlled in the US, so for reasons outside of the 2nd amendment a person could not legally possess a working nuke in the US.

You avoided the actual question.

The question is moot. One cannot legally posses the materials the make a working nuke in the US. If people could not possess metal or plastic in the US then they could not possess AR-15s under the 2nd amendment.

Isn't it a violation of the 2nd amendment to prevent individuals from making nukes? Banning those materials prevents individuals from protection against tyranny under 2a.

No it isn’t. 49ers game is on, so I need to take a break from working to improve your logic and critical thinking skills. Hopefully someone else will fill the void.

You are intentionally avoiding the main principle of the question.

Should individual citizens be allowed to own nukes to protect against tyranny? On general principal, your personal opinion, yes or no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals think the Second Amendment was written just after the Founding Fathers just finished a 2-week hunting excursion...

It was written after they just finished fighting a tyrannical government in 1791, just years after the Revolutionary War.

Shall not be infringed.

"well regulated militia"

1) Not interpreted as an individual right till modern times.

2) The amount of gun crime and ease of straw purchasing makes the current status of "well regulated" questionable

3) Modern weapons mean individuals would need to own nukes, missiles, etc. to have the power to counteract the government. Nobody wants that and if you do, you're a lunatic and should have your sanity evaluated.

The Founders fought their government. Our entire country (the colonies) fought their government.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776


“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

You know the maga(t)s have lost when they start pulling out scripts written like 400 years ago by dead white men who owned slaves.



YOU LOST MAGA!!!! SUCK IT!!!!

Seriously. You want to used these quotes to defend your stance? Then you have the right bear all arms that were available to you in 1776.

Just the 1A only applies to the printing press.

Remarkable that one amendment can adapt with evolving society and not another, isn’t it? It’s almost like one of them is the bread and butter of a gian$ lo$$y organi$ation and g$n manu$acture$.

Still crickets from the gun nuts here.

Since you seem to think the 1A covers inventions postdating the printing press, I see no reason that the 2A can't also cover modern armaments. The 2A did evolve much like the 1A and like the 1A it didn't become more narrow in scope.

Yes or no: should 2a cover individual right for mosr common citizens to own nuclear weapons or weapons with a similar scale of destruction? Able to wipe out an entire city in one go. No snark, straightforward yes or no answer.

Yes, it covers those weapons as written. I believe courts have since decided that there are limits to the 2A and even the 1A. However, I can't expect to have nuanced discussion with the black and white thinkers in this thread.

Do you personally agree with courts that under 2a, there are limits such as individual right to own a nuclear weapon that could destroy a city?

Their is no limit. Constition would have to be amended for a limit. So yes citizens can have nukes.

And do you personally agree then that the constitution is correct to allow individual citizens to possess nukes?

The 2nd amendment offers no prohibition against nukes. Most 8th graders world-wide and even some in the US could build the delivery mechanism. The challenge is in acquiring/producing the required fissionable material to make a working nuke. Those materials are controlled in the US, so for reasons outside of the 2nd amendment a person could not legally possess a working nuke in the US.

You avoided the actual question.

The question is moot. One cannot legally posses the materials the make a working nuke in the US. If people could not possess metal or plastic in the US then they could not possess AR-15s under the 2nd amendment.

Isn't it a violation of the 2nd amendment to prevent individuals from making nukes? Banning those materials prevents individuals from protection against tyranny under 2a.

He’s hopeless. He cherry picks what should be literal and what should evolve to justify his ammosexuality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals think the Second Amendment was written just after the Founding Fathers just finished a 2-week hunting excursion...

It was written after they just finished fighting a tyrannical government in 1791, just years after the Revolutionary War.

Shall not be infringed.

"well regulated militia"

1) Not interpreted as an individual right till modern times.

2) The amount of gun crime and ease of straw purchasing makes the current status of "well regulated" questionable

3) Modern weapons mean individuals would need to own nukes, missiles, etc. to have the power to counteract the government. Nobody wants that and if you do, you're a lunatic and should have your sanity evaluated.

The Founders fought their government. Our entire country (the colonies) fought their government.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776


“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

You know the maga(t)s have lost when they start pulling out scripts written like 400 years ago by dead white men who owned slaves.



YOU LOST MAGA!!!! SUCK IT!!!!

Seriously. You want to used these quotes to defend your stance? Then you have the right bear all arms that were available to you in 1776.

Just the 1A only applies to the printing press.

Remarkable that one amendment can adapt with evolving society and not another, isn’t it? It’s almost like one of them is the bread and butter of a gian$ lo$$y organi$ation and g$n manu$acture$.

Still crickets from the gun nuts here.

Since you seem to think the 1A covers inventions postdating the printing press, I see no reason that the 2A can't also cover modern armaments. The 2A did evolve much like the 1A and like the 1A it didn't become more narrow in scope.

Yes or no: should 2a cover individual right for mosr common citizens to own nuclear weapons or weapons with a similar scale of destruction? Able to wipe out an entire city in one go. No snark, straightforward yes or no answer.

Yes, it covers those weapons as written. I believe courts have since decided that there are limits to the 2A and even the 1A. However, I can't expect to have nuanced discussion with the black and white thinkers in this thread.

Do you personally agree with courts that under 2a, there are limits such as individual right to own a nuclear weapon that could destroy a city?

Their is no limit. Constition would have to be amended for a limit. So yes citizens can have nukes.

And do you personally agree then that the constitution is correct to allow individual citizens to possess nukes?

The 2nd amendment offers no prohibition against nukes. Most 8th graders world-wide and even some in the US could build the delivery mechanism. The challenge is in acquiring/producing the required fissionable material to make a working nuke. Those materials are controlled in the US, so for reasons outside of the 2nd amendment a person could not legally possess a working nuke in the US.

You avoided the actual question.

The question is moot. One cannot legally posses the materials the make a working nuke in the US. If people could not possess metal or plastic in the US then they could not possess AR-15s under the 2nd amendment.

Isn't it a violation of the 2nd amendment to prevent individuals from making nukes? Banning those materials prevents individuals from protection against tyranny under 2a.

He’s hopeless. He cherry picks what should be literal and what should evolve to justify his ammosexuality.

I noticed his general repeated avoidance of the main point of the questions I was asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals think the Second Amendment was written just after the Founding Fathers just finished a 2-week hunting excursion...

It was written after they just finished fighting a tyrannical government in 1791, just years after the Revolutionary War.

Shall not be infringed.

"well regulated militia"

1) Not interpreted as an individual right till modern times.

2) The amount of gun crime and ease of straw purchasing makes the current status of "well regulated" questionable

3) Modern weapons mean individuals would need to own nukes, missiles, etc. to have the power to counteract the government. Nobody wants that and if you do, you're a lunatic and should have your sanity evaluated.

The Founders fought their government. Our entire country (the colonies) fought their government.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776


“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

You know the maga(t)s have lost when they start pulling out scripts written like 400 years ago by dead white men who owned slaves.



YOU LOST MAGA!!!! SUCK IT!!!!

Seriously. You want to used these quotes to defend your stance? Then you have the right bear all arms that were available to you in 1776.

Just the 1A only applies to the printing press.

Remarkable that one amendment can adapt with evolving society and not another, isn’t it? It’s almost like one of them is the bread and butter of a gian$ lo$$y organi$ation and g$n manu$acture$.

Still crickets from the gun nuts here.

Since you seem to think the 1A covers inventions postdating the printing press, I see no reason that the 2A can't also cover modern armaments. The 2A did evolve much like the 1A and like the 1A it didn't become more narrow in scope.

Yes or no: should 2a cover individual right for mosr common citizens to own nuclear weapons or weapons with a similar scale of destruction? Able to wipe out an entire city in one go. No snark, straightforward yes or no answer.

Yes, it covers those weapons as written. I believe courts have since decided that there are limits to the 2A and even the 1A. However, I can't expect to have nuanced discussion with the black and white thinkers in this thread.

Do you personally agree with courts that under 2a, there are limits such as individual right to own a nuclear weapon that could destroy a city?

Their is no limit. Constition would have to be amended for a limit. So yes citizens can have nukes.

And do you personally agree then that the constitution is correct to allow individual citizens to possess nukes?

The 2nd amendment offers no prohibition against nukes. Most 8th graders world-wide and even some in the US could build the delivery mechanism. The challenge is in acquiring/producing the required fissionable material to make a working nuke. Those materials are controlled in the US, so for reasons outside of the 2nd amendment a person could not legally possess a working nuke in the US.

You avoided the actual question.

The question is moot. One cannot legally posses the materials the make a working nuke in the US. If people could not possess metal or plastic in the US then they could not possess AR-15s under the 2nd amendment.

Isn't it a violation of the 2nd amendment to prevent individuals from making nukes? Banning those materials prevents individuals from protection against tyranny under 2a.

He’s hopeless. He cherry picks what should be literal and what should evolve to justify his ammosexuality.

I noticed his general repeated avoidance of the main point of the questions I was asking.

Same. He has a ChatBot vibe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So gun nutters are literal about the 2nd amendment except for the militia part and choose to just ignore the change in technology. Got it. You’ve twisted yourself into a pretzel to defend your love of killing machines. Cherry picking to justify the indefensible. No other civilized society lives like this and it’s all to make the NRA and gun manufacturers rich.

Apples to oranges poster is correct. But that thinking is too complex for gun nuts.

If you're going down the militia route, then you should agree that everyone has the rights to have the same weapons as the military because in military service you brought your own weapons to train and fight with. And you would support everyone regularly meeting up to train

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So gun nutters are literal about the 2nd amendment except for the militia part and choose to just ignore the change in technology. Got it. You’ve twisted yourself into a pretzel to defend your love of killing machines. Cherry picking to justify the indefensible. No other civilized society lives like this and it’s all to make the NRA and gun manufacturers rich.

Apples to oranges poster is correct. But that thinking is too complex for gun nuts.

If you're going down the militia route, then you should agree that everyone has the rights to have the same weapons as the military because in military service you brought your own weapons to train and fight with. And you would support everyone regularly meeting up to train

Why doesn't everyone have the same rights to weapons in the military, even with 2a?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So gun nutters are literal about the 2nd amendment except for the militia part and choose to just ignore the change in technology. Got it. You’ve twisted yourself into a pretzel to defend your love of killing machines. Cherry picking to justify the indefensible. No other civilized society lives like this and it’s all to make the NRA and gun manufacturers rich.

Apples to oranges poster is correct. But that thinking is too complex for gun nuts.

If you're going down the militia route, then you should agree that everyone has the rights to have the same weapons as the military because in military service you brought your own weapons to train and fight with. And you would support everyone regularly meeting up to train

Why doesn't everyone have the same rights to weapons in the military, even with 2a?

No, m4s are not available for civilian purchase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So gun nutters are literal about the 2nd amendment except for the militia part and choose to just ignore the change in technology. Got it. You’ve twisted yourself into a pretzel to defend your love of killing machines. Cherry picking to justify the indefensible. No other civilized society lives like this and it’s all to make the NRA and gun manufacturers rich.

Apples to oranges poster is correct. But that thinking is too complex for gun nuts.

If you're going down the militia route, then you should agree that everyone has the rights to have the same weapons as the military because in military service you brought your own weapons to train and fight with. And you would support everyone regularly meeting up to train

Why doesn't everyone have the same rights to weapons in the military, even with 2a?

No, m4s are not available for civilian purchase.

To clarify, M-4 carbines are available to law enforcement agencies, which are “civilian” organizations.

M-4 clones built on fully automatic receivers registered before the number of such receivers was frozen are probably available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So gun nutters are literal about the 2nd amendment except for the militia part and choose to just ignore the change in technology. Got it. You’ve twisted yourself into a pretzel to defend your love of killing machines. Cherry picking to justify the indefensible. No other civilized society lives like this and it’s all to make the NRA and gun manufacturers rich.

Apples to oranges poster is correct. But that thinking is too complex for gun nuts.

If you're going down the militia route, then you should agree that everyone has the rights to have the same weapons as the military because in military service you brought your own weapons to train and fight with. And you would support everyone regularly meeting up to train

Why doesn't everyone have the same rights to weapons in the military, even with 2a?

No, m4s are not available for civilian purchase.

To clarify, M-4 carbines are available to law enforcement agencies, which are “civilian” organizations.

M-4 clones built on fully automatic receivers registered before the number of such receivers was frozen are probably available.

What's the going price on a pre 86 receiverand the availability ? Even then you'd be nuts for actually using the lower for militia training given the value. It's not a realistic option.

I've never understood why miller wasn't used for support of the 2nd amendment to overcome the 86 ban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals think the Second Amendment was written just after the Founding Fathers just finished a 2-week hunting excursion...

It was written after they just finished fighting a tyrannical government in 1791, just years after the Revolutionary War.

Shall not be infringed.

"well regulated militia"

1) Not interpreted as an individual right till modern times.

2) The amount of gun crime and ease of straw purchasing makes the current status of "well regulated" questionable

3) Modern weapons mean individuals would need to own nukes, missiles, etc. to have the power to counteract the government. Nobody wants that and if you do, you're a lunatic and should have your sanity evaluated.

The Founders fought their government. Our entire country (the colonies) fought their government.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776


“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

You know the maga(t)s have lost when they start pulling out scripts written like 400 years ago by dead white men who owned slaves.



YOU LOST MAGA!!!! SUCK IT!!!!

Seriously. You want to used these quotes to defend your stance? Then you have the right bear all arms that were available to you in 1776.

Just the 1A only applies to the printing press.

Remarkable that one amendment can adapt with evolving society and not another, isn’t it? It’s almost like one of them is the bread and butter of a gian$ lo$$y organi$ation and g$n manu$acture$.

Still crickets from the gun nuts here.

Since you seem to think the 1A covers inventions postdating the printing press, I see no reason that the 2A can't also cover modern armaments. The 2A did evolve much like the 1A and like the 1A it didn't become more narrow in scope.

Yes or no: should 2a cover individual right for mosr common citizens to own nuclear weapons or weapons with a similar scale of destruction? Able to wipe out an entire city in one go. No snark, straightforward yes or no answer.

Yes, it covers those weapons as written. I believe courts have since decided that there are limits to the 2A and even the 1A. However, I can't expect to have nuanced discussion with the black and white thinkers in this thread.

Is this within the well organized militia?

A militia doesn't form until it needs to. It's in the future. Read the amendment. Your right to firearms are not dependent on it being formed at the moment.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We no longer need a militia, genius. One of the major changes since that was written is that we now have a professional military. If you want to play with guns, join the national guard or the military. Otherwise you’re just cosplaying.

A professional military that Democrats are very willing to turn against the citizens of the US. How many times have you called for the National Guard to "fix" things?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So gun nutters are literal about the 2nd amendment except for the militia part and choose to just ignore the change in technology. Got it. You’ve twisted yourself into a pretzel to defend your love of killing machines. Cherry picking to justify the indefensible. No other civilized society lives like this and it’s all to make the NRA and gun manufacturers rich.

Apples to oranges poster is correct. But that thinking is too complex for gun nuts.

If you're going down the militia route, then you should agree that everyone has the rights to have the same weapons as the military because in military service you brought your own weapons to train and fight with. And you would support everyone regularly meeting up to train

Why doesn't everyone have the same rights to weapons in the military, even with 2a?

No, m4s are not available for civilian purchase.

To clarify, M-4 carbines are available to law enforcement agencies, which are “civilian” organizations.

M-4 clones built on fully automatic receivers registered before the number of such receivers was frozen are probably available.

What's the going price on a pre 86 receiverand the availability ? Even then you'd be nuts for actually using the lower for militia training given the value. It's not a realistic option.

I've never understood why miller wasn't used for support of the 2nd amendment to overcome the 86 ban.

“Not realistic” is not the same as “not available.”

Miller is a crappy decision all the way around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So gun nutters are literal about the 2nd amendment except for the militia part and choose to just ignore the change in technology. Got it. You’ve twisted yourself into a pretzel to defend your love of killing machines. Cherry picking to justify the indefensible. No other civilized society lives like this and it’s all to make the NRA and gun manufacturers rich.

Apples to oranges poster is correct. But that thinking is too complex for gun nuts.

If you're going down the militia route, then you should agree that everyone has the rights to have the same weapons as the military because in military service you brought your own weapons to train and fight with. And you would support everyone regularly meeting up to train

Why doesn't everyone have the same rights to weapons in the military, even with 2a?

No, m4s are not available for civilian purchase.

To clarify, M-4 carbines are available to law enforcement agencies, which are “civilian” organizations.

M-4 clones built on fully automatic receivers registered before the number of such receivers was frozen are probably available.

What's the going price on a pre 86 receiverand the availability ? Even then you'd be nuts for actually using the lower for militia training given the value. It's not a realistic option.

I've never understood why miller wasn't used for support of the 2nd amendment to overcome the 86 ban.

“Not realistic” is not the same as “not available.”

Miller is a crappy decision all the way around.

No m4s aren't available to regular citizens to own. You can't go down and buy one new at a store. A m4 clone is not an m4 available at the store.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does it change your view of gun ownership or of Kamala Harris?

It does not, because I don't believe she actually owns the gun. Were there any proof of her buying the gun?