In before the gun confiscation NUTS.....
- Thread starter Capt Ron 1
- Start date
Your right to bear arms shall not be limited.
If you have two guns, you are bearing arms. If I keep you from getting a third, you are still bearing arms as provided by the 2nd.
Ahem...
Your interpretation is disjointed.
If you're limiting the number you are clearly "limiting." Durp.
In black and white it says you cannot do that. Otherwise someone could easily take the same liberties with the 1st and do a similar end-round on it.
It's as though you don't understand the consequences.
And of course I'm a strict constitutionalist. I swore an oath to uphold and defend it. Did you? Because you're doing the opposite here.
You just don’t get it man. Even if you HATE guns, and I'm not claiming that you do, but if someone did, if you don't honor the document, the entire document, then that document doesn't hold power and all the rights it grants and guarantees become weaker if not meaningless.
3 replies to one post, lol.
I granted you free speech. I will allow you to say 2 things that I don't agree with. Therefore I have not stripped you of your free speech.
But no, you don't get to say 3 things.
I didn't say anything about 'limit'.
I asked a simple yes or no question:
If you have two guns, are you bearing arms?
You are are off base about the 1st. It says no law shall be made so it doesn't make sense to suggest making a law.
The second doesn't say there will never be any gun laws.......only that you have the right to bear arms.
You don't want to answer my question because you know the correct answer is yes.
No, I ABSOLUTELY do not know that.
You're playing games with words to deny a guaranteed right that you don't particularly care for while simultaneously, and hypocritically, claiming that another guarantee is different "cuz."
I can allow some speech. You can allow some guns.
I am actually ok with this. Pro life.
Whether it be an unborn baby or a convicted killer. Let the convicted killer sit in prison for life.
Yet still, you avoid answering my question.
I'm not denying that we have a right to bear arms.....just like the law says.
You must want to take them away because you keep discussing ways to limit their ownership.
Among the people who have accounted for 0% of gun violence in the history of the planet.
The law doesn't say there is a limit on the number of guns you can own.
You DID say you take the Constitution literally. You aren't doing that.
Again, you said a couple of pages ago that this 'controversy' was settled and that meant you were wrong. Now this morning you are acting like that never happened, just to try to revive a stale troll attempt.
This is not how a moderate behaves. This is how a sad fanatic behaves.
Ah yes, the gun company's 'slippery slope' bogeyman.
If you make one law against guns, the jackbooted thugs will be kicking your door down next.
This is another leftist stance. And for the record, I tend to agree with you on this issue. My mind isn't made up either way, but I lean toward no death penalty versus more.
See? I'm more moderate than you are.
Logically, we should be looking for ways to have law-abiding gun owners own as many guns as they want.
If we are being logical and aren't scared of inanimate objects.
You think we solve gun violence by throwing AK-47s in jail.
You're actually correct on something (bolded). Good job!
The second amendment doesn't mention anything about limits on the number of guns.
What is does say is that your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
So, if you have two guns, you are bearing arms and your right to do so has not been infringed.
That's definitely what is happening here. First you outsmarted @fatman76, now @BamaFan1137 sees the brilliance of your argument, he just refuses to admit it to you.
You've got them both on the ropes. Go, tiger!
You guys would love Deathroll. On gun topics, no one is to his right.
It's a BS loaded question. The 2nd amendment guarantees that my right won't be limited...and you're trying to limit the right by saying you have some guns. You're playing games with words and it's silly. It's a ridiculous attempt.
Well, I can be just as intellectually dishonest...you have some free speech. Also ridiculous.
Correct. And if you had left it there, no one would have said anything else.
But as always, you started trolling, and got slapped down.
And he's already admitted that there cannot be a limit placed on the number of guns owned so the 'controversy' is over.
Our trolls believe a troll works if it gets a response. Our trolls say something idiotic, everyone here replies 'Bro, that's idiotic', and our trolls believe they won.
It's amazing to see.
You like to label people (and hypocritically hate being labeled) so maybe we would and maybe we wouldn't.
You've said this twice now and you have exercised your alloted free speech. I will not allow a third.
I'm not. I believe in an eye for an eye and I also believe that it would be an actual deterrent if we didn't wait 20-30 years to kill them back.
Conviction, 12 jurors agreed, a judge sentenced and another judge reviews the case and findings. After judge #2 agrees, goodbye and God bless their soul.
It will NOT stop people from killing one another but I believe that it COULD reduce killings....if we stop waiting 20 or 30 years.
And I've agreed with you on that point about 3 times in this thread.
Remember, you said you take the Constitution literally, and even clarified that means you go by the words it uses, nothing more.
THEN you immediately went from that to claiming that if a person has 2 guns, that their right to bear arms is fulfilled according to the Constitution.
Yet that's literally NOT what the Constitution says.
You are a very dishonest person when it comes to the gun debate.
Is he an honest poster? I can deal with honest posters, I can't take seriously someone who is dishonest.
It’s honestly not something I feel strongly about either way TBH. I actually can see both sides on this issue. This is probably way more personal for you, so I completely get and appreciate your perspective on this one.
He's a good Gator he's just all the way to the right on gun issues so I know y'all would like him.
If we're going to wait 20 or 30 years, agree, we may as well stop doing it. That serves no purpose so far as I can tell.
Along these same lines, my idea of a life sentence means actual life...no reason to try and rehabilitate. Their special prison includes rakes, hoes, seeds and access to water. Good luck.
The prison wouldn't be guarded by people, more like CWIS. It's called metal storm and they operate based on movement or manual fire control.
Let me know when this happens, and I will answer you. Also...let me know when we pass a balanced budget amendment. They will happen at the same time. NEVER
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Refugee in Sweden killed after burning the quran several times...- Latest: treygator29
-
-
-
