Where did I say anything about dictating anything? I never said anything about changing who can have a gun. I'm just saying the right to ownership isn't protected; just the right to possess a firearm. Again, you are arguing about something I didn't say.
Wait.... My right to possess a gun I own is protected by the Constitution, but my right to own it is not? That argument will fail in every court it is heard. Except the US 9th circuit, of course.
Eh...help me out here then. You're saying I can possess a firearm but not actually own it. Outside of semantics are verbiage what exactly is the difference? What difference does it make if I have a closet full of AK-47s that the government owns but lets me keep in my house over having a closet full of AK-47s that I own and keep in my house? How exactly does that change anything? I still have AK-47s in my house...
Without even pulling up the 2nd Amendment, I believe that you will find a little word in there called "keep" if you were to look it up for yourself. Keeping arms IS owning arms. People have the right to keep and bear arms... This Amendment is a written expression of every person's inherent right to self defense. Even if there were no 2nd Amendment, we would still have that right. Rights are not granted by governments; they are inherent. That is also expressed in the 9th Amendment. You don't get to determine how many bullets are "reasonable" for self defense. You are not a dictator. Each individual gets to determine what is "reasonable".
Yes, it does. The 9th Amendment makes clear that the enumeration of certain rights within the US Constitution shall not be construed in a way to deny people of their unenumerated rights... In other words, what you are trying to do... What "limits"? Why? The 2nd Amendment doesn't list any "limits"... What if there are three or more people I need to defend myself from? You don't get to determine what a "reasonable" amount of bullets for self defense is; you are not a dictator.
Okay. When did the debt explode? Under Obama and due to his tax policies. That is his legacy. Wow, that was fun... Actually, the debt exploded before Reagan (remember FDR?) and exploded after Reagan too... The USA hasn't been serious about it's debt since WW1...
The second amendment specifies both keep and bear simultaneously. It is not merely one or the other. One cannot keep something if they do not legally own it. Since the united states government is not issuing weapons to any private citizens, the argument in itself is entirely moot. Then law enforcement officers have no legitimate reason in possessing a greater amount.
Which weapons is the united states government actually issuing or otherwise loaning out for private use? Show such. Such is an entirely arbitrary and capricious amount to be suggesting. And the united state supreme court has already ruled against arbitrary and capricious standards when it comes to the matter pertaining to firearms in the Heller decision.
"government owned weapons loaned out for private use"... Source: your post #46. Yes, you did. See your post #46. And you would be wrong. Read the 2nd Amendment. It specifically says KEEP and bear arms... He was responding to the argument which you made.
Already done in the bluest part of this blue state. How is that big, powerful government thing working out for ya?
"Generally, colonists preferred to own fowlers, Indian trade guns, and fusils (light muskets) well suited to birding, hunting, and pest control, and not heavier military-style muskets. Essentially these weapons were in purpose closer to a modern shotgun or a .22 rifle than an M-16 assault rifle. A distinct minority of colonists, mostly urban residents, owned pistols that had a limited range and limited military uses..... "In the late 1780s, many state militias no longer appeared to be capable of ensuring what the Second Amendment would call the 'security of a free State' without improved organization, better training, and thousands of publicly supplied military muskets with bayonets. Americans were not worried that agents of the new federal government would come, door to door, to take away their squirrel guns, trade guns, fowlers, and pistols.... "Third, the assumption by the majority in Heller that the Second Amendment gave handguns constitutional protection because 'the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon' fails to meet the self-proclaimed standard of those jurists seeking to recover the Constitution's original meaning. According to the originalists, a document's words mean what the average rational man on the street thought they meant at the time. The ruling makes sense only if you believe that Dirty Harry was the typical American in 1791." https://www.chronicle.com/article/All-Guns-Are-Not-Created-Equal/136805 Using a gun for self-defense only became a controversial issue after the invention of the revolver. The Second Amendment was not written to address that issue. There was no need to at the time.
arms are protected arms means weapons that normally an individual would use individually that are not artillery nor ordnance. Firearms are such and thus are specifically protected. So are swords, knives, spears, clubs, rapiers, dirks, daggers, flails, morningstars, nunchaku, Kama, poleaxes, bows and arrows, atlatls, gladiuses, claymore swords, and three sectioned staffs. (among others)
the same number as faiths are mentioned in the first amendment. Using your silly logic, Catholicism, Episcopalianism, etc is not protected by the first.
The second amendment was not written to address any one specific use of firearms by private citizens. It was written to protect legal firearms ownership for not only legal, but legitimate uses. There was no need for it to specify what the firearms were to be used for, as that is not the purpose of any particular amendment in the bill of rights.
So, what you just did was summarize the opinion of the Supreme Court decisions. That’s where abortion is inferred too.
there is no reference to abortion. there is a reference to religion. It is pretty pathetic you cannot see the difference.
And there is no reference to assault weapons, firearms etc. and it’s pathetic you still think otherwise.
