The right to arm bears.

Historically, Politalker is partially correct.

The Second had two purposes. One was EXACTLY as PoliTalker indicated. The founders observed what happened in Europe with permanent, standing armies and they had a disdain for that. The armed civilian militia was a stopgap from any invaders until a standing army could be mustered. PoliTalker is correct in that respect. Also correct in that context is that the Second is outdated. Why have a militia when you already have the bigeest, baddest standing military in the world.

It’s not the word “arms” that is in dispute. “Bear arms” is the term to be discussed. In the 18th Century, “bear arms” was always used in a military context. You didn’t “bear arms” to go out and shoot dinner. You bore arms to protect yourself or your community from the enemy. There is no doubt about that context.

The Second also was about protection from a tyrannical government. In that time, that was very much a reality, especially in Europe. Arms put you on a more equal footing. Again, the civilian militia. In today’s context, that’s a joke. A true tyrannical government can kill someone halfway across the world with a push of a button. Anyone thinking they can protect themselves from the full force of the government today is delusional. Again, the Second is outdated. PoliTalker is correct.

The Second was never intended to be used as it has morphed into thanks to groups like the NRA. 24/7 carry? Pffffft. Again, PoliTalker is correct.

Bullshit.
40 states have their own constitution. This is from my state's constitution.

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
https://law.justia.com/constitution/pennsylvania/
 
See my answer to TruthDetector. If either of you desire a conversation on the details you will have to first acknowledge that ours is better and about half the cost per capita.

Is that why, in 2014, 50,000 Canadiens came to the United States for medical treatment?
 
PoliTalker is not correct because PoliTalker is deliberately injecting obviously incorrect personal opinion as fact. If you start with a grain of truth but then use that to inject your personal bullshit in order to prove the sun rises in the West then you're not telling the truth.

I'll ask you too: You have two weapons...an AR-15 and a sawed-off shotgun. One is protected under the Second Amendment and one isn't. Which weapon is protected and which one isn't protected...but more important...why?

I really don't give a fuck whether you believe the historical context of the Second or not. That's up to you to fix your ignorance on the matter.

The facts are, as PoliTalker indicated, about the standing army. The facts are, as I added to that, about bearing arms.

The context of the Second was ALWAYS military. It was never what the NRA and gun manufacturers have twisted it into.
 
I really don't give a fuck whether you believe the historical context of the Second or not. That's up to you to fix your ignorance on the matter.

The facts are, as PoliTalker indicated, about the standing army. The facts are, as I added to that, about bearing arms.

The context of the Second was ALWAYS military. It was never what the NRA and gun manufacturers have twisted it into.

I asked you a simple question. I want to help you establish your chops on this issue. I asked you about two types of firearms.
 
Bullshit.
40 states have their own constitution. This is from my state's constitution.

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
https://law.justia.com/constitution/pennsylvania/

I really don't give a fuck what your state constitution says. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And the ruling on that is you don't have the right to pack anything, anytime, anywhere.

The truth is, dumbfuck, is that the term "bear arms" is related to military use. I explained that before. Fix your own ignorance. I can't do it for you.
 
I asked you a simple question. I want to help you establish your chops on this issue. I asked you about two types of firearms.

I don't need to answer your stupid fucking question. You and I already know the answer. Nice try at diversion though.

Now, do something different and try to educate yourself on the origins of the Second.

Prediction: You won't.
 
I don't need to answer your stupid fucking question. You and I already know the answer. Nice try at diversion though.

Now, do something different and try to educate yourself on the origins of the Second.

Prediction: You won't.

Let's be honest here, you can't answer my question and don't give a fuck about the truth.
 
Let's be honest here, you can't answer my question and don't give a fuck about the truth.

lol

Just like some of your RW buddies, you'll turn this into some sort of obsession. Predictable.

I gave you the truth, pal. Whether you are able to comprehend it is on your shoulders.

Studied the Second yet? Guess not. It's only been a few minutes.

Prediction: You won't.
 
lol

Just like some of your RW buddies, you'll turn this into some sort of obsession. Predictable.

I gave you the truth, pal. Whether you are able to comprehend it is on your shoulders.

Studied the Second yet? Guess not. It's only been a few minutes.

Prediction: You won't.

Rudy got nothing. Big shock.
 
Is that why, in 2014, 50,000 Canadiens came to the United States for medical treatment?

The statistical record shows that over a million Americans went to other countries for medical treatment during the same time period.

Don't take my word for it. If you like what you've got then enjoy!
 
The statistical record shows that over a million Americans went to other countries for medical treatment during the same time period.

Don't take my word for it. If you like what you've got then enjoy!

Did they go there just to get medical treatment, or were they there already and required medical treatment?
 
Back
Top