The LT Colonel is Coming Home! Look OutNRA!

[haymarket]

He was and asked several times. Do you support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms? I believe all the firearms mentioned so far are arms. Do you believe citizens have that right without any restriction of that right. Since any restriction would mean the right is infringed which is prohibited. Unless somebody can dream up a restriction that is not an infringement which has not happened yet.

Yes I support the right to keep and bear arms.

YOu are wrong in your statement that any restriction causes the right to be INFRINGED since the right is still able to be exercised with a tremendously wide range of choices available to the citizen with which to exercise that right.

 

[haymarket]

We are talking about that. If you support restricting the ability of people to keep and bear arms, a behavior they have a right to do under the constitution, just because of certain characteristics of the particular arm (say barrel length), then you are supporting violating their Constitutional right to a behavior that is protected.

There is no right under the Constitution to do what you claim is a right.

 

[Green Man]

There is no right under the Constitution to do what you claim is a right.

There is a right to keep and bear arms. Rights are protected behaviors.

 

[haymarket]

There is a right to keep and bear arms. Rights are protected behaviors.

Oh - we are stating obvious truths that have nothing to do with the issue. Goodie.
The sun rose in the east today.

 

[Crimefree]

I see nobody here advocating that people should not exercise their rights.

I'm shocked how would you know? Are you sure you can see? And if you made a claim I'd put money on the opposite.

What is the point of a background check? What will it prove beyond all shadow of a doubt?

 

[haymarket]

I'm shocked how would you know? Are you sure you can see? And if you made a claim I'd put money on the opposite.

What is the point of a background check? What will it prove beyond all shadow of a doubt?

Why would you reproduce a post of mine and then say nothing relevant in response to it?

 

[Green Man]

Oh - we are stating obvious truths that have nothing to do with the issue. Goodie.
The sun rose in the east today.

The constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. A right is a protected behavior. You support the government prohibiting this protected behavior when the arm has particular characteristics, such as a short barrel. Therefore you advocate for the violation of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Crimefree]

Why would you reproduce a post of mine and then say nothing relevant in response to it?

I responded to a post of yours I comment directly on the contents. See why I had my doubts about sight.

 

[haymarket]

The constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. A right is a protected behavior. You support the government prohibiting this protected behavior when the arm has particular characteristics, such as a short barrel. Therefore you advocate for the violation of the right to keep and bear arms.

There is no right to do what you claim is a right.

 

[haymarket]

I responded to a post of yours I comment directly on the contents. See why I had my doubts about sight.

Yes you commented - but you said nothing relevant. It was merely an excuse for you to say what you wanted to say. You can do that without reproducing a post of mine if you are not going to speak to it.

 

[Green Man]

There is no right to do what you claim is a right.

Nope. There is a right to do precisely that, namely keep and bear arms.

If you disagree, perhaps you can tell us what exactly the right to keep and bear arms gives the American people the right to do.

 

[haymarket]

Nope. There is a right to do precisely that, namely keep and bear arms.

If you disagree, perhaps you can tell us what exactly the right to keep and bear arms gives the American people the right to do.

That is not a right we are talking about. You are talking about a claimed right to a sawed off shotgun. There is no such right.

 

[Green Man]

That is not a right we are talking about. You are talking about a claimed right to a sawed off shotgun. There is no such right.

So you're claim is that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't protect the act of keeping and bearing arms. Got it.

 

[haymarket]

So you're claim is that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't protect the act of keeping and bearing arms. Got it.

Please go back and read my post again. There is no right to a sawed off shotgun.

 

[Green Man]

Please go back and read my post again. There is no right to a sawed off shotgun.

It is an arm. The American people may keep and bear arms, since this is a specifically protected behavior.

 

[jaeger19]

Please go back and read my post again. There is no right to a sawed off shotgun.

Okay.. lets do this again...

So please detail EXACTLY what arms are protected.. or are no arms protected? I like you to tell me.. exactly what arms I have the right to bear.. since you seem to say we have the right to bear arms.. but no arms are protected.

Lets hear it.

If there is no right to a sawed off shotgun.. what IS there a right to own.

 

[haymarket]

Okay.. lets do this again...

So please detail EXACTLY what arms are protected.. or are no arms protected? I like you to tell me.. exactly what arms I have the right to bear.. since you seem to say we have the right to bear arms.. but no arms are protected.

Lets hear it.

If there is no right to a sawed off shotgun.. what IS there a right to own.

The right to bear arms is what is protected. No individual weapon is protected - merely the right to bear arms. Individual weapons can be banned or restricted and the right can still be exercised with thousands upon thousands of choices available to the citizen.

 

[Green Man]

The right to bear arms is what is protected.

Precisely. The act of keeping and bearing arms is a protected behavior. A sawed off shotgun is an arm. Thus the behavior of keeping and bearing this object, which is an arm, is protected.

 

[haymarket]

Precisely. The act of keeping and bearing arms is a protected behavior. A sawed off shotgun is an arm. Thus the behavior of keeping and bearing this object, which is an arm, is protected.

Is a nuclear bomb an arm?

 

[Green Man]

Is a nuclear bomb an arm?

No. A sawed off shotgun certainly is. A select fire rifle is.

 

[haymarket]

No. A sawed off shotgun certainly is. A select fire rifle is.

Where are you getting your answer from that a nuclear bomb is not an arm?

 

[Green Man]

Where are you getting your answer from that a nuclear bomb is not an arm?

From my brain.

 

[haymarket]

From my brain.

So just make it up as you go along to suit your own belief system. Got it loud and clear.

I - on the other hand so something very very different that I was taught to do as part of debate in college - I cite a independent authoritative source.

Merriam Webster Dictionary

Arm - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So a nuclear bomb is indeed an arm.

 

[Green Man]

So just make it up as you go along to suit your own belief system. Got it loud and clear.

I - on the other hand so something very very different that I was taught to do as part of debate in college - I cite a independent authoritative source.

Merriam Webster Dictionary

Arm - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So a nuclear bomb is indeed an arm.

If you say so. I don't care.

A short-barreled shotgun is an arm, as is a select-fire rifle. The American people have a right to keep and bear arms, and the federal government may not stop them from doing so based simply on the characteristics of said arm.

 

[haymarket]

If you say so. I don't care.

It is not I who made that determination. It was made by independent experts on the meaning of words like ARM. And as for your not caring...Yes - that has been established that you do not care about independent third party authorities. Why should you when your own belief system overrides nearly all else in the world?