Seriously, you are having this much trouble in understanding what I said? I suggest you again reread the conversation between us because once again you are going off into the weeds as you are prone to.
No, that is the point, it was a compromise, not one view. Oh my...this is getting incomprehensible.
Anytime you want to back that claim, with court references, just quote me and post it.
Anytime you want to back that claim, with court references, just quote me and post it.
the only time a cop needs the weapon is when he is facing an imminent threat of severe bodily harm or death and that is the same for other civilians. what you are trying to say (and you are wrong) is that cops face more SERIOUS threats than other civilians. That is not true. and as I have noted, cops or almost never the target of unprovoked attacks like convenience store owners etc are. When cops are in a gun fight with mopes the cops usually know that they are going into a dangerous situation. When you are walking down the street or sitting in a movie theater or shopping in a mall you are not expecting a criminal attack. Same when you are sleeping in your bed.
that is why non LEOs usually are facing more dire circumstances than cops. Its because the criminals almost always initiate the deployment of a weapon FIRST against a civilian. Not so with cops who often do felony search warrants or arrest warrants on unsuspecting criminals or at least get a dispatch call of a problem
so your claim is completely wrong, counter to real life experience and is contrary to fact
You really do NOT seem it get it do you Turtle?
Stop telling me what you think "I am trying to say". What I have said is clear and if you simply flush all the other nonsense you can focus on that.
You are not a police officer and do not perform their job. As such, you do not need the tools they posses to do their job.
End of position.
All of your jumping through hoops pretending that you are is simply you trying to rationalize the right wing paranoid delusion of pretending that you need equal fire power in case the great war of liberation comes and youy have to battle the cops.
The second amendment clearly says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and the SCOTUS has confirmed that.
And in this case the conditions are to not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. :shrug:
hindered
HIN'DERED, pp. Stopped; impeded; obstructed; retarded.
You really do NOT seem it get it do you Turtle?
Stop telling me what you think "I am trying to say". What I have said is clear and if you simply flush all the other nonsense you can focus on that.
You are not a police officer and do not perform their job. As such, you do not need the tools they posses to do their job.
End of position.
All of your jumping through hoops pretending that you are is simply you trying to rationalize the right wing paranoid delusion of pretending that you need equal fire power in case the great war of liberation comes and youy have to battle the cops.
You keep dancing around your own quotes, avoiding the arguments that they addressed and continuing this racing through the weeds.I never did try to argue that, as I explained to you.
If I have misunderstood that the SC has never viewed that the 2nd protects the right to possess military weaponry, then I ask you again, prove it.You, however, took a single line out of a SCOTUS decision and misrepresented it's meaning.
I can objectively disprove that subjective falsehood, but that isn't the point. It did prevent you or any other citizen from legally purchasing assault weapons....and it was never challenged in the SC.The assault weapons ban was never challenged because it didn't actually do anything meaningful.
I get it, you think that cops deserve better tools to protect themselves from armed attacks by criminals than the rest of us do
Personally, I think the "great war of liberation", as you put, it is unlikely....but possible. More possible would be the eventual collapse of our govt leaving us to fend for ourselves (more likely). Given that possibility, I believe it well within our need to posses adequate weaponry to provide for our own security.
My position is NOT based on SCOTUS. It is based on the meaning of the Second Amendment as it was written.
btw - you mentioned HINDERED as part of the definition.... here is that definition from the same 1828 source
That goes hand in hand with my position that the right must be stopped or defeated to be INFRINGED.
And the Constitution provides that for you as I have repeatedly indicated.
You are off in the weeds with mac, you two have fun out there...mkay?so you deny that the second amendment recognizes a pre existing right?
LOL, and the USSC stopped actually following the constitution during the New Deal
do you honestly believe the commerce clause was intended to allow congress to regulate small arms?
YOU do NOT get it.
You are not a cop. You do nto need the tools they need to do their professional job because you do not do their professional job.
You are off in the weeds with mac, you two have fun out there...mkay?
I have a game to watch, cya
Bob and weave, homey.
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963
No, as you want it to be. My point is that your point is in oppostion to what it actually means, and SCOTUS agrees with me.
This is nonsensical. Anything other than "full use of" is infringement.
Not as you would have it infringed.
If there were no cops, he would be as much a cop as the currently existing ones are. As would you and I.
I have never advocated any measure by the government that would have it INFRINGED.
And if you and I had wings we would not need cars.
A cop does NOT have the weapons they have because of the Second Amendment. Cops all over the world in all sorts of countries bear weapons in nations where people have no right to keep and bear arms. But they do it for the same reason as American cops do it - because it is part of the equipment needed to do the job.
that is because anything short of a complete ban on someone being able to own even one gun, you claim is not an infringement.
so tell us why other civilians-when facing a lethal criminal attack-often of more serious nature than that of a cop,-should not be allowed to have a weapon as effective as that of a police officer
Is your answer
1) police are more valuable than say store owners
2) store owners are more likely to misuse such a weapon
it has to be one or the other
which is it
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?