Gun Threads - Merged

[Dog Wonder]

Do you have a "Free Guns" sign in your front yard?

 

[700UW]

 

[townpete]

Just shows how uneducated and ignorant you are.

The term "well regulated" back then doesn't have the same meaning today. Back then it meant "in proper working order".

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

 

[Dog Wonder]

The term "well regulated" back then doesn't have the same meaning today. Back then it meant "in proper working order".

OK, Just shows how uneducated and ignorant you are.
 
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/01/man_booked_in_toddlers_shootin.html

 

[EastUS1]

OK, Just shows how uneducated and ignorant you are.
 

 
Yep. Got it. ONLY the guvmint should have guns.....It's not like those holy and fully angelic beings would/even could just murder any of us lesser mortals if that ever happens....Right? Take a brief moment to observe the following, a citizen of the the United States with NO weapon drawn or ever even evidenced being murdered. Next?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5J9NHAiC4E
 
 
 
"OK, Just shows how uneducated and ignorant you are." Umm..Hmm...I'm now honestly amazed that you can even breath without the direct assistance of hospital machinery in some intensive care unit. I've often argued with it before, but nowadays must fully accept that "Liberalism is a form of mental illness".....

 

[Dog Wonder]

 
Yep. Got it. ONLY the guvmint should have guns..

Gotta make sure these guys got guns.
 
http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/index.ssf/2016/01/three_men_on_mushrooms_fight_w.html

 

[southwind]

Just shows how uneducated and ignorant you are.
The term "well regulated" back then doesn't have the same meaning today. Back then it meant "in proper working order".http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

It's cool. He justifies Jihad by comparing it to something that happened thousands of years ago and gives Islamic Terrorist a pass too!

 

[KCFlyer]

Just shows how uneducated and ignorant you are.

The term "well regulated" back then doesn't have the same meaning today. Back then it meant "in proper working order".

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

 
Unreasonable also had a different meaning back then.  So if well regulated doesn't mean the same thing as it did back then, couldn't it be possible that "shall not be infringed" also changed? 

 

[townpete]

 
Unreasonable also had a different meaning back then.  So if well regulated doesn't mean the same thing as it did back then, couldn't it be possible that "shall not be infringed" also changed? 

 
It's been shown how the phrase was used back then. It's not even close to what you liberals confuse it with. Like it or not.
 
How was the word "unreasonable" have an altogether different meaning? 
 
Pretty sure the word "infringed" never had an altogether different meaning either.

 

[KCFlyer]

 
It's been shown how the phrase was used back then. It's not even close to what you liberals confuse it with. Like it or not.
 
How was the word "unreasonable" have an altogether different meaning? 
 
Pretty sure the word "infringed" never had an altogether different meaning either.

 
How did unreasonable get a different meaning?  Google USA Patriot Act.  
 
How many different kinds of guns were there that the common folk owned back when the founding fathers wrote that?  One (the musket)?  I sure can see how keeping you from owning the only weapon available at the time might be considered "Infringement".   I wonder what they would think today....would they think a militia "in proper working order" would have a need for much of the weaponry we have....especially when we have a standing army to protect the security of the nation?  

 

[KCFlyer]

 
Yep. Got it. ONLY the guvmint should have guns.....It's not like those holy and fully angelic beings would/even could just murder any of us lesser mortals if that ever happens....Right? Take a brief moment to observe the following, a citizen of the the United States with NO weapon drawn or ever even evidenced being murdered. Next?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5J9NHAiC4E
 

 
Yes...if a black man had his hands above his head while troopers guns were trained on him, then reached into his coat...then the shootings were justified.....right?  Apparently, if the black guy were running away with arms akimbo, THAT justifies a shooting.  But somehow, a guy who was part of a group who vowed to protect the constitution and were willing to die for the cause brings his hands down and reaches into his coat.  YOU'RE the cop....what would your first reaction be? 

 

[Dog Wonder]

 
It's been shown how the phrase was used back then.

It was on the internet, so you believe it is gospel.

 

[townpete]

 
How did unreasonable get a different meaning?  Google USA Patriot Act.  
 
How many different kinds of guns were there that the common folk owned back when the founding fathers wrote that?  One (the musket)?  I sure can see how keeping you from owning the only weapon available at the time might be considered "Infringement".   I wonder what they would think today....would they think a militia "in proper working order" would have a need for much of the weaponry we have....especially when we have a standing army to protect the security of the nation?  

 
You failing basic comprehension behind the difference between these three things: Word, Phrase and Term
 
The word "unreasonable" has always meant the same thing. If you're arguing how it was abused under the Patriot act then that has nothing to do with what i was talking about.
 
You seem to think that there's some kind of "fine print" attached to constitution where it says "arms" are referred to as "muskets" and only "muskets." Guess what, there isn't.
 
You, like most liberals fail at what the constitution was intended for. It was to protect the individuals sovereignty over an over reaching government authority. Not the other way around.

 

[KCFlyer]

 
You failing basic comprehension behind the difference between these three things: Word, Phrase and Term
 
The word "unreasonable" has always meant the same thing. If you're arguing how it was abused under the Patriot act then that has nothing to do with what i was talking about.
 
That is because to you, there is only the "bill of right"....screw the other 9.  You don't really care that an amedment was actually trampled....you are only concerned because the precious second amendment is "threatened".
 
You seem to think that there's some kind of "fine print" attached to constitution where it says "arms" are referred to as "muskets" and only "muskets." Guess what, there isn't.
 
Another poster said that the meaning of "well regulated" meant something different in our founding fathers day.  If one phrase can mean something different, why don't others.  So educate me....what other kinds of guns did the common folk own back when the constitution was written.  Muskets and single shot pistols. What other ones am I missing? 
 
You, like most liberals fail at what the constitution was intended for. It was to protect the individuals sovereignty over an over reaching government authority. Not the other way around.
 
Yet as I pointed out....you don't really care that the government overreached with the Patriot Act because after all....if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about. 

 

[townpete]

 

 
You failing basic comprehension behind the difference between these three things: Word, Phrase and Term
 
The word "unreasonable" has always meant the same thing. If you're arguing how it was abused under the Patriot act then that has nothing to do with what i was talking about.
 
That is because to you, there is only the "bill of right"....screw the other 9.  You don't really care that an amedment was actually trampled....you are only concerned because the precious second amendment is "threatened".
 
You seem to think that there's some kind of "fine print" attached to constitution where it says "arms" are referred to as "muskets" and only "muskets." Guess what, there isn't.
 
Another poster said that the meaning of "well regulated" meant something different in our founding fathers day.  If one phrase can mean something different, why don't others.  So educate me....what other kinds of guns did the common folk own back when the constitution was written.  Muskets and single shot pistols. What other ones am I missing? 
 
You, like most liberals fail at what the constitution was intended for. It was to protect the individuals sovereignty over an over reaching government authority. Not the other way around.
 
Yet as I pointed out....you don't really care that the government overreached with the Patriot Act because after all....if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about. 

 

 
 
Putting words in peoples mouth again. Please show where i said i "don't really care that the government overreached with the Patriot Act".
 
If you can show with proof how these meanings and phrases are different then so be it. I did. Try using the Oxford English Dictionary as a reference. It will show what words/phrases meant in different time periods.
 
Right to bear "arms" is not the same as right to bear "muskets". If it were to be limited as such it would have been written that way.  But it wasn't.