tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post9178540784266685409..comments2024-03-07T02:17:34.434-08:00Comments on Tom In Paine: Gun debate proves there is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun but common sense laws can solve the gun problem.Marc Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-68049145181892536482013-01-28T13:25:46.736-08:002013-01-28T13:25:46.736-08:00"You DO need a permit for a parade. How can t..."You DO need a permit for a parade. How can that be? Could it be that this "unlimited" reading of the Second Amendment is just plain wrong (and just plain silly, to boot)?"<br /><br />the only thing silly is your argument. What do you think the words "shall not be infringed" mean? what do you think an "infringment" means? Bone up on your vocabulary and you wont make silly statements. And do NOT try and impose YOUR idea of what the word means. The only thing that matters is what it really means and what the people who wrote it knew it meant, and what it was defining, not your idea of what you think it means based on completely irrelevant comparisons and ideas that are nowhere to be found in the second amendment.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-55875400021071628822013-01-28T13:22:38.874-08:002013-01-28T13:22:38.874-08:00"Arms" means weapons, of any dimension a..."Arms" means weapons, of any dimension and capacity. You tried making an argument to what the framers of the constitution meant"<br /><br />Im sorry you missed my point. My point wasnt what I think the Framers meant. My point was we KNOW what the framers meant, we know it from the transcripts of the debates that still exist and can be read. Arms means weapons of war. Period. Anything used in war are arms. If its not a weapon of war it is NOT arms, and the framers who knew the language better than anyone trying to twist what they wrote to mean something else, knew it.The only definition of the word "arms" is weapons of war. In case you didnt know its why those who carry arms in large groups are called an "army".Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-82064838030067074842013-01-28T13:17:52.897-08:002013-01-28T13:17:52.897-08:00"YOUR A FUCKTARD!!!"
The only fucktard ..."YOUR A FUCKTARD!!!"<br /><br />The only fucktard is you who are both ignorant of the Bill of Rights the constitution and all the Supreme Court justices in 225 years who ruled it does NOT give an individual a right to own a gun. This is the only fuctard court to rule that it does because of the 5 fucktard conservative justices who ruled that way then tried to change their minds which you are too much of a dumb fucktard to know. You are way too stupid to own a gun but luckily for you taking an intelligence test isnt part of getting a permit. if it ever is you are toast.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-49134171295124029752013-01-15T12:50:11.712-08:002013-01-15T12:50:11.712-08:00The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United ...The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.YOUR A FUCKTARD!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-70745110436672471822013-01-14T21:43:58.890-08:002013-01-14T21:43:58.890-08:00If you want to make a reasonable argument against ...If you want to make a reasonable argument against the 2nd amendment, I'm game. But you need to be consistent and be reasonable.<br /><br />"Arms" means weapons, of any dimension and capacity. You tried making an argument to what the framers of the constitution meant, then you jumped to "missiles and nuclear weapons." Seriously? If you're going to support policies and policitcal candidates which involve limiting the freedom of others, please make a real argument.<br /><br />One thing not one person ever seems to consider is actually repealing the 2nd amendment. What this mean is the meaning of the 2nd amendment is of no consideration to the argument any ways. This means that there are a group of people who want guns, and conveniently they use the 2nd amendmend from time to time as a supporting argument.<br /><br />Those who dont want guns, will simply not use the 2nd amendment as an argument. Or they will dismiss it as relevant. The reality is those who are against guns don't even try to remove the 2nd amendmend as an argument, any interpretation of it. Let's face it, if you really think it means nuclear weapons or missiles....no one will argue one your side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-26194161672777939572013-01-12T15:15:03.104-08:002013-01-12T15:15:03.104-08:00"4. Any gun lost or stolen that is unreported..."4. Any gun lost or stolen that is unreported and involved in the commission of a crime should charge the registered owner as an accessory before the fact on any crime committed with his or her gun including murder."<br /><br />How does filing the appropriate paperwork with the police for a lost gun help to prevent its use in a murder? Are the police going to spring into action and track down the new illegal owner? Of course, they're not. So not reporting the loss has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's used in a murder. So why should I be sentenced to life in prison for murder? Because I didn't file some paperwork with a government bureaucrat? <br /> <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-63856830296763006742013-01-11T13:54:42.840-08:002013-01-11T13:54:42.840-08:00"If the second amendment did relate to indivi..."If the second amendment did relate to individual gun ownership, there would be no debate on gun laws because there is a little thing in the amendment called the infringement clause then specifically says the right granted in the second amendment is unlimited and cannot be reduced, modified,impeded, altered, or changed in any way."<br /><br />I couldn't agree more with your infringement argument. If you look at the First Amendment, you'll see that the infringement argument is even stronger than under the Second Amendment :<br /><br />"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."<br /><br />You'll notice that "respecting", "prohibiting", and "abridging" are unqualified, just as "infringed" is unqualified in the Second Amendment. This is why church buses and other vehicles owned by a church are not subject to speed limits or other traffic laws and why there are no libel laws in this country and why you don't need a permit to hold a parade.<br /><br />Wait a minute. There's something wrong here. Church vehicles ARE subject to the traffic laws. You CAN be sued for libel. You DO need a permit for a parade. How can that be? Could it be that this "unlimited" reading of the Second Amendment is just plain wrong (and just plain silly, to boot)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com