Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And you keep mistaking the phrase "bear arms", a military phrase and used as such, for "having some right to wander around carrying a gun", which is guaranteed absolutely nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
Also, even that site you posted, gunnut.org or whatever, has an interesting breakdown of the 2nd Amendment that comes to conclusion that "bear arms" is military in nature.
It's obvious you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about
Quote/reference the specific portions.
Of course if you're going to jump on how it relates to militias (which is only one aspect of it and not the entire matter), I'll remind you of this:
"Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers." -George Mason
You really are grasping at straws to be pulling things out of context. Nothing in that prevent banning rifles from open carry, which is what we were talking about.
It's kind of pathetic really, to watch you be so desperate as to resort to what amounts to lying.
I think:
Quote:
Nothing in that amendment prohibits banning rifles at all.
Means precisely what it says. If you meant carrying rifles you would have said so.
Means precisely what it says. If you meant carrying rifles you would have said so.
I don't give a **** what you think. I wrote it, I think I know what I was talking about. You're pulling quotes out of context and trying to use that as some basis to attack me.
I don't give a **** what you think. I wrote it, I think I know what I was talking about. You're pulling quotes out of context and trying to use that as some basis to attack me.
It's lying, pure and simple.
I did not take it out of context. You can't take something like that out of context anyways.
A) you clearly said nothing prohibits banning rifles in TX
B) you insisted there is a distinction between the right to keep and the right to bear arms, one being individual, one military related
C) such a distinction is absurd and baseless, you can't seperate the two rights
A) No, I did not. I was quoting your post about the difference in banning handguns from open carry versus rifles and said that nothing that statute prohibits banning rifles. In context, it's plainly obvious it was about open carry.
B) Are you just completely mental? Law and history experts agree that that the language used in the Constitution is using "bear arms" in a military sense. I can't help it if you are so detached from reality that you don't believe it.
A) No, I did not. I was quoting your post about the difference in banning handguns from open carry versus rifles and said that nothing that statute prohibits banning rifles. In context, it's plainly obvious it was about open carry.
B) Are you just completely mental? Law and history experts agree that that the language used in the Constitution is using "bear arms" in a military sense. I can't help it if you are so detached from reality that you don't believe it.
C) See above.
A) I'll go by what you typed.
B) your "experts" are just a bunch of anti-gun leftists who don't know anything about our history. The SCOTUS did a half decent analysis in Heller of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Your side lost.
C) what's your basis for saying the right to keep arms is individual but the right to bear is not?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.