Those who choose to practice a particular right...

no he has a valid point just repeating yourself and always using caps lock is the internet equivalent of screaming all the time rather hysterically

 

Duly noted that you NEVER called out YOUR biggest *LOSER* when he did the EXACT same thing in his tweets.

The term hypocrisy springs to mind.

 

So then no one should believe your random claims? Duly noted.

 

I dont preach against guns and then claim to have gone thru the considerable effort to obtain a carry permit.

 

Where did I preach against guns? Oh right...never. If you consider being against anymore gun laws as “preaching against guns” then you’re more clueless than I thought. Hahahaha.

 

Which arms specifically are excluded then from the “shall not be infringed” clause? LOL

 

As per heller

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

Sure. Agreed. But the weapons being infringed upon today ARE weapons in common use. That’s the point! The more commonly used the more anti 2A people want to ban them. Automatic weapons are the norm in the military. Yet heavily restricted for civilians. That’s in direct conflict with what you just posted.

Do you guys think about what you post?

 

Nope, civilians don't need military hardware.

 

Please think about what you have posted. You have refuted your own arguments. I’m ok with that because we disagree on this subject. But I’d like to see more logical arguments from your position—just in the interest of more entertaining and educational debate.

 

I disagree with that. When one protests cops for being violent, racist killers, then turns around and demands gun control legislation that bans semi-auto weapons for the reasoning of they make mass murder easy and were only designed to kill a lot of people quickly, but make sure that ban excludes the cops you don’t trust to abuse you, thereby ensuring they are better armed than the population by having a monopoly on the modern day musket, they aren’t interested in not getting shot. They just want the abusive cops they protest to have all the killing power to do as they please with no resistance.

 

And thus you agree -- the right to own and use firearms “in common use at the time” is protected from infringement by the 2nd.
This includes:
-Handguns
-Revolvers
-Semi-automatic pistols
-Shotguns
-Semi-automatic shotguns
-Rifles
-Semi-automatic rifles
So....
Which arms specifically are excluded then from the “shall not be infringed” clause?

 

There you go.

 

These firearms are “in common use at the time”.
The 2nd protects the right to own and use firearms "in common use at the time” from infringement.

Please demonstrate how these firearms are specifically excluded from the “shall not be infringed” clause?

 

The left wants the state to have a monopoly on force; their current apoplexia re: cops and racism only serves as a pander to colored people, in a effort to gain their vote.

 

They weren't in common use during the founders era.

 

Irrelevant. Unless you think the 4th amendment doesn’t apply to phone calls and emails, as they weren’t around in the founders era?

 

I've lost count of how many times cons state we should interpret the constitution based on the founders views even though 200+ years have gone by.

 

According to the USSC, in the case you cited, your opinion, above, borders on frivolous.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

So:
The firearms you mentioned are “in common use at the time”.
The 2nd protects the right to own and use firearms "in common use at the time” from infringement.

Please demonstrate how these firearms are specifically excluded from the “shall not be infringed” clause.

 

You think George Washington had a brace of Colts with ivory grips? LOL

 

The intent and the words of the amendments are what matter. That a piece of technology didn't exist 250 years ago is irrelevant to the intent and wording of the amendment.

 

And the meaning of words changes too.

 

The firearms you mentioned are “in common use at the time”.
The 2nd protects the right to own and use firearms "in common use at the time” from infringement - the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Please demonstrate how these firearms are specifically excluded from the “shall not be infringed” clause.

 

I wonder what GW would have thought about his frontiersmen and potential militiamen each having a AR15 with a bandolier of 30-rd magazines hanging above the fireplace.

 

It would have made the War for Independence less stressful for him.