DNC Vice Chair Publicly Demands Repeal of the 2nd Amendment

a reply to: introvert

Mental gymnastics created that belief. But its very clear. States cannot suppress free speech nor can they suppress the right to bear arms

Any clarification will only water down the original, and give a lower platform from which to perform new mental gymnastics.

a reply to: introvert

What part of laws did you miss?

They don't stop people from doing bad things.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Mental gymnastics created that belief. But its very clear. States cannot suppress free speech nor can they suppress the right to bear arms

Again, define arms. What does the constitution define as arms?

Not very clear is it?

Any clarification will only water down the original, and give a lower platform from which to perform new mental gymnastics.

That's possible. That is why we need to be very careful, but at the going rate we potentially may see a further degradation of our right. We are not doing a good job at talking about this issue as a nation.

a reply to: introvert

Good thing criminals like a fair and square fight, and that it's beneath them to prey on those of lesser physical stature.

originally posted by: introvert

Again, define arms. What does the constitution define as arms?

In your world vision do we at least all get to keep semi-auto muskets?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

What part of laws did you miss?

They don't stop people from doing bad things.

At this point I'm not sure even you know what you are talking about.

My right to defend myself exists and can be done with or without a firearm.

I would think you would agree with that, but apparently you believe you cannot do one without the other.

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: introvert

Good thing criminals like a fair and square fight, and that it's beneath them to prey on those of lesser physical stature.

That does not negate my point, and my point still holds true.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

In their world vision we'd be using pencils and papers instead of smart phones and the internets.

All things being equally applied.

a reply to: introvert

My right to defend myself exists and can be done with or without a firearm.

How did that work out for those students in florida?

a reply to: introvert

Did it ever occur to you that they didnt specify specific weapon types / models so that the document could keep up with the times?

These dues would understand technological process. They werent in the effing stone age.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: introvert

Again, define arms. What does the constitution define as arms?

In your world vision do we at least all get to keep semi-auto muskets?

In my world we would approach this topic a bit more seriously and would leave the childish retorts to the children.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Lumenari

Rights should not be eroded and degraded, clarified and expanded. They are our rights.

I hope you read what you posted and realize the error in such thinking.

We should always be looking to clarify and expand our rights.

What you posted contradicts itself.

Yea.

Here is a good example of a contradiction... a neighbor of mine that is a transplanted Californian liberal.

He has a decent collection of guns, including a few modded AR and AK variants.

Also a gun control advocate.

I asked him about that apparent contradiction and his reply was simply "I'm OK with owning these, because I know what I'm doing with them. However, I don't think that a normal person should have access to these type of weapons.

That's all I needed to know about liberals and gun control. Pretty much an Animal Farm mentality. We are all the same only some of us are better. Right?

a reply to: introvert

For me...its because its nonstop. I get sick of this same topic every few months.

Patience doesnt last forever.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

My right to defend myself exists and can be done with or without a firearm.

How did that work out for those students in florida?

Nice appeal to emotion.

My point still stands.

Our right to defend ourselves is not defendant upon the right to bear arms.

a reply to: Lumenari

I asked him about that apparent contradiction and his reply was simply "I'm OK with owning these, because I know what I'm doing with them. However, I don't think that a normal person should have access to these type of weapons

Gun Control.

Legalized discrimination/BIGOTRY.

a reply to: introvert

My point still stands.

No it doesn't.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Did it ever occur to you that they didnt specify specific weapon types / models so that the document could keep up with the times? These dues would understand technological process. They werent in the effing stone age.

BINGO!

And to keep it up to date with the times what do we have to do?

a reply to: Lumenari

That's all I needed to know about liberals and gun control. Pretty much an Animal Farm mentality. We are all the same only some of us are better. Right?

No. You example is absurd and is a logical fallacy.

In fact, you're being hypocritical because you are doing exactly what you claim of liberals.

a reply to: introvert

Allow citizens to buy main battle tanks.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Did it ever occur to you that they didnt specify specific weapon types / models so that the document could keep up with the times?

Point of fact, SCOTUS talked about exactly that.

"Common use at the time" is the phrase they kept repeating, and "the time" meaning whatever the day in question is. In DC v. Heller, it was found that handguns are "in common use at the time" and thus protected.