why we know the 2A is an individual right[W:999]

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

it's an internet forum .. it's not a place for your juvenile manhood test.
what are you going to do?.. challenge me to a spelling bee or a typing contest next?

thank you for finally providing proof, even if we had ot go through you lil idiot dance to get here.
I'll have to have a chat with Piratemk and explain the err in his ways ( yes, he's wrong)... as are you if you agree with him.

I have no doubt Pirate has always been subjected to some "re-education" from your crowd for daring to publcly agree with me and undercutting the argument most of you offer.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

a person cannot bear a nuclear weapon.... that should be the first clue that something might be amiss in arguing they are protected by the 2nd amendment.

once the first clue is hurdled, there are many more obstacles one must totally ignore to argue in the affirmative.

I already gave you the link to the post by Pirate where he agrees with me about nuclear arms. Read a bit further and you will see Turtle also attempted the sham that you just did with the whole carry nonsense and destroyed that silly canard also. So you still got nothing ..... other than your belief that is.

from Pirate

Webster's contemporary dictionary of the time supports my position, and I know of NO documents of the founders that disagree with my reading. Further as a I pointed out, private citizens of the time were as well armed as the Navy or Army of the time, frequently being hired by our government to go pirate hunting and other similar work. Warships and cannon as I previously said were commonly in private hands. Those were the WMD's of the time. As you claim the founders did in fact have a restricted view of 2nd amendment, then a document or letter I can peruse would be nice. Your trying to ride a fine line, by differentiating arms, because that same reasoning can and is being used in current arguments against your right to keep arms that argument is part of the crux of the anti gunners arguments. So If you are aware of a founders document that has this restriction mentioned then I would like to know of it so I might learn from it.

that was from his 540.
This is from 548

Really, can one bring to bear a cannon of a fighter plane, or man of war? Bear means to bring forth. Webster's dictionary 1828.

bear

BEAR, v.t. pret.bore; pp. born,borne. [L. fero, pario, porto. The primary sense is to throw out, to bring forth, or in general, to thrust or drive along. ]

1. To support; to sustain; as, to bear a weight or burden.
2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, "they bear him upon the shoulder;", "the eagle beareth them on her wings."
3. To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.
4. To keep afloat; as, the water bears a ship.
5. To support or sustain without sinking or yielding; to endure; as, a man can bear severe pain or calamity; or to sustain with proportionate strength, and without injury; as, a man may bear stronger food or drink.
6. To entertain; to carry in the mind; as, to bear a great love for a friend; to bear inveterate hatred to gaming.
7. To suffer; to undergo; as, to bear punishment.

Of course, the zealots who reject dictionary definitions in favor of their own self imposed beliefs of fantasy will have a bit of trouble with it. Maybe they can use some of your legendary...... what did you call it again? --- oh yeah.... logic. :lamo

 

[justabubba]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

its not logic. Its what some zealot calls logic because they cannot come up with actual verifiable evidence to support their claims.

bam!!

 

[Jerry]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

based on this difference of opinion alone, it would appear 2A is not all that clear

The 2A is clear, your ability to read it is not guaranteed, though.

You should perhaps have a look at the Heller decision for more.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

The 2A is clear, your ability to read it is not guaranteed, though.

You should perhaps have a look at the Heller decision for more.

Its never been about ability to read Jerry. Its always been about the ability to BELIEVE.

 

[justabubba]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

The 2A is clear, your ability to read it is not guaranteed, though.

You should perhaps have a look at the Heller decision for more.

but the fact that this remains a viable topic of debate shows us that 2A is NOT clear on that very topic

 

[Jerry]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Its never been about ability to read Jerry. Its always been about the ability to BELIEVE.

Its actualy never been about belief.

 

[Jerry]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

but the fact that this remains a viable topic of debate shows us that 2A is NOT clear on that very topic

The topic is active because people want to run against the amendment without properly removing it. The amendment is clear, liars like you and haymarket are the problem. Honest people can read the words for what they say. If you cant do that, then that says something about you, not the amendment.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Its actualy never been about belief.

Oh but it has. Just look at the argument from Turtle over and over and over again where he says it does not matter about the dictionaries of the time and it even does not matter so much what the Constitution actually does in connecting the militia with gun ownership - what matters is the BELIEF SYSTEM that some of the Founders supposedly had behind it. And then those who accept that BELIEVE in this idea of natural rights and inalienable rights and the whole thing is a house of cards based on BELIEF.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

The topic is active because people want to run against the amendment without properly removing it. The amendment is clear, liars like you and haymarket are the problem. Honest people can read the words for what they say. If you cant do that, then that says something about you, not the amendment.

What have I lied about? Please present my quotes and tell me what constitutes the lie.

 

[Jerry]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Oh but it has....

Nope, never has been.

 

[MACS-24]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Its not logic. Its what some zealot calls logic because they cannot come up with actual verifiable evidence to support their claims.

Do you have verifiable evidence for this claim?

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Nope, never has been.

I have already explained it to you. All you have to do is go back through this thread and its all there in spades. Last evening I liked to the Lt. Col thread and its all there also.

Some of you simply BELIEVE certain things so you prostrate yourself before the same altar with fellow BELIEVERS and you all share your BELIEF SYSTEM with each other and you get comfort and support in the BELIEFS of the others which only strengthens your own BELIEFS. And the BELIEF in natural rights is the center of it all.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Do you have verifiable evidence for this claim?

yes - the post from the poster where he claimed it.

Originally Posted by Green Man
No, because it doesn't make logical sense. If one has the right to keep and bear something, in this case arms, then one cannot be prevented from keeping and bearing that thing and have the right at the same time.

The poster is claiming that the right to keep and bear arms gives one the ability and right to keep and bear ANY and ALL ARMS and the law cannot prevent that. That is not LOGIC- that is ABSURD. The Second provides no such right to bear ANY ARM you want to and never has. So the poster did not use LOGIC - they simply lied about the right itself and what it protects.

 

[MACS-24]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

yes - the post from the poster where he claimed it.

You saying "yes" is not verifiable evidence. I didn't think you could back up that bold, "pot meet kettle" post.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

You saying "yes" is not verifiable evidence. I didn't think you could back up that bold, "pot meet kettle" post.

go back and read it again - as I was editing it with the verifiable evidence you asked for you posted at the same time.

 

[MACS-24]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

go back and read it again - as I was editing it with the verifiable evidence you asked for you posted at the same time.

Still not there. I did not ask for a quote of GreenMan, I wanted to see verifiable evidence to your claim in post 600.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Still not there. I did not ask for a quote of GreenMan, I wanted to see verifiable evidence to your claim in post 600.

It is right there. The post I mocked for the claim of LOGIC was the post of Green Man that I produced for you along with analysis as to why the poster did not use LOGIC as claimed. You got hat you asked for and now are throwing a fit of petulance because your challenge backfired on you.

 

[MACS-24]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

It is right there. The post I mocked for the claim of LOGIC was the post of Green Man that I produced for you along with analysis as to why the poster did not use LOGIC as claimed. You got hat you asked for and now are throwing a fit of petulance because your challenge backfired on you.

:lamo So, quoting greenman is verifiable evidence of

Its not logic. Its what some zealot calls logic because they cannot come up with actual verifiable evidence to support their claims.

Face it, everytime you think you sling poo onto someone, you hit yourself.

 

[Jerry]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

...All you have to do is go back through this thread....

Yeah that's just not gona happen lol

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

:lamo So, quoting greenman is verifiable evidence ofFace it, everytime you think you sling poo onto someone, you hit yourself.

You are making no sense and digging a deep hole for yourself exposing only your own petulance. the fact is that I reproduced the post I mocked for he claim of LOGIC and clearly showed why it was not at all logical.

If that is not good enough for you - tough and i could not care less. this entire thing is part of a strategy employed by right wing posters who have been repeatedly exposed when I challenge them to produce verifiable evidence of their claims and they cannot do it. So now a few of you have decided to demand the same of me. Fine. And I give it to you. But that hardly advances your phony crusade now does it?

You asked and you got what you asked for.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Yeah that's just not gona happen lol

well that then is on you. I am not asking you to do a search of thousands of posts scattered across years and various threads. its right here in this very thread and in the link to the other gun thread that I provided.

 

[Green Man]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

The poster is claiming that the right to keep and bear arms gives one the ability and right to keep and bear ANY and ALL ARMS and the law cannot prevent that.

The 2nd amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. Based on this, you cannot prevent the American people from keeping and bearing that which they have the right to keep and bear. Namely arms.

 

[Crimefree]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

There is no right to any arm you want to have. So no right is being INFRINGED.

"Arms" by legal definition means ALL ARMS. Not some arms. Please can you name the dictionary you use.

The same as ships means all ships, woman means all woman and dickheads means people who think different.

The right is explicit. To keep and bear ARMS. That mean all or any ARM is protected as possible arms.

You are welcome to show the wording in the constitution that says different.

 

[MACS-24]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

You are making no sense and digging a deep hole for yourself exposing only your own petulance. the fact is that I reproduced the post I mocked for he claim of LOGIC and clearly showed why it was not at all logical.

If that is not good enough for you - tough and i could not care less. this entire thing is part of a strategy employed by right wing posters who have been repeatedly exposed when I challenge them to produce verifiable evidence of their claims and they cannot do it. So now a few of you have decided to demand the same of me. Fine. And I give it to you. But that hardly advances your phony crusade now does it?

You asked and you got what you asked for.

How does that prove that Zealots can't provide evidence as you said and how does that prove Green Man is a Zealot as you said?

Just like a cat in the sandbox, you never provide evidence, only bury the turd of a post and hope no one will see or notice.