Nowhere in the 2nd does it say you can have an AR15.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we can have cars, either. I guess that means we should all turn our car keys over to the government, right?
Big Government nutter logic.
Yep, cars are totally equatable to guns. You got me. Well done.
LOL, totally incoherent.That's why all the western country with normal guns laws don't operate properly. It's just chaos here, no one can get anything done because we don't have guns.
Facepalm.
Congratulations. You just used your very own nutter logic to figure out that your earlier AR15 point was really stupid.Also, it doesn't say you can't murder people in the constitutions, so by your logic the founders fathers must have thought it was ok to kill people.
Yep, cars are totally equatable to guns. You got me. Well done.
That's why all the western country with normal guns laws don't operate properly. It's just chaos here, no one can get anything done because we don't have guns.
Facepalm.
Also, it doesn't say you can't murder people in the constitutions, so by your logic the founders fathers must have thought it was ok to kill people.
No one here cares what laws you do or don't have. Seeing as the USA is the worlds largest economy and only superpower we must be doing something better than everyone else.
Most definitely. You can use a car just like you can use a gun - to kill people. In fact, I'd argue that a car could be just as deadly as any gun, if not more so. For instance, if you get a car up to speed, drive it onto a busy downtown sidewalk, you can kill far more people with a car than you can kill with a gun.
LOL, totally incoherent.
Congratulations. You just used your very own nutter logic to figure out that your earlier AR15 point was really stupid.
There's still hope for some of you government bootlickers.
Err, what?
No one here cares what laws you do or don't have. Seeing as the USA is the worlds largest economy and only superpower we must be doing something better than everyone else.
Of course, it just will just be interpreted in a more intelligent way.
Nowhere in the 2nd does it say you can have an AR15. Why not just let everyone have rocket launchers, tanks and nukes?
And before some idiots says 'Nukes are arms' or some stupid shit, where does it say in the 2nd what are arms and what aren't?
There were no automatic weapons in 1776. The founding fathers did NOT intend average citizens to have the kind of weapons they have today.
Queue the moron guns nuts blowing a gasket.
Why should we care what less successful countries think.
OK, you're too stupid to debate with, so I'm not even going to bother.
This point is obviously false, since the overwhelming majority of guns are never, ever fired in anger. They never kill or injure anyone at all. Most people just use their guns for target practice and sport.If you can't see the difference between a car and a gun then there's not really much talk about.
The sole purpose of a car isn't to kill things! How hard is this to understand?
Here's the relevant text of the Second Amendment:The point about the AR15 is that you can't use the 2nd to justify guns to be legal because it doesn't explicitly state that citizens should be able to posses them.
The AR15 is a personal defense arm, much like the contemporary arms the Founders were referring to when they drafted the Second Amendment. So I think you can use the Second Amendment to justify ownership of the AR15.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Based on what, exactly?If all laws could only be created if they were explicitly allowed in the constitution then things just wouldn't work.
Sorry, but no. The fundamental human right to self-defense isn't up for debate or interpretation. What part of, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed..." do you not understand?Just like all other aspects of the constitution are interpreted with an eye to the current state and feeling of society, so must the 2nd.
So what did you say, then? That the government should be able to possess personal defense weapons that the people shouldn't? Why? Why should a potentially tyrannical government have access to weapons the people shouldn't have access to? Can you formulate any kind of rational, logical argument in support of this view?I never said guns should be banned in America, but guns nuts need to stop banging on about the fucking 2nd amendment. It ain't 1776 idiots.
And nowhere does it say in the first amendment that you can spout off like a moron on the internet.
Why is it that gun nuts can never argue their point in an intelligent, coherent way?
They just come in throwing insults around or pull the most ridiculous straw men out there asses.
"Cars can kill people too!! Haha, game, set, match to me!! Looks at me mum, I is doing debating!"
Why is it that gun nuts can never argue their point in an intelligent, coherent way?
They just come in throwing insults around or pull the most ridiculous straw men out there asses.
"Cars can kill people too!! Haha, game, set, match to me!! Looks at me mum, I is doing debating!"
The AR15 is a personal defense arm, much like the contemporary arms the Founders were referring to when they drafted the Second Amendment.
Where?! Where does it say that?! That's what we're talking about here.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed..."
Meanwhile, you haven't yet effectively countered the car point yet. Your only argument has been, "but, but, but, that's different!" without successfully explaining why.
Can you explain why corrupt, murderous governments should have AR15s, but not the people?
Really?
So, because the 2nd doesn't mention ARs I can't own them. Then by your logic, the 1st doesn't cover anything relating to the internet because it isn't specifically mentioned either.
And you're questioning the point I'm trying to make?
Of course, it just will just be interpreted in a more intelligent way.
Nowhere in the 2nd does it say you can have an AR15. Why not just let everyone have rocket launchers, tanks and nukes?
And before some idiots says 'Nukes are arms' or some stupid shit, where does it say in the 2nd what are arms and what aren't?
There were no automatic weapons in 1776. The founding fathers did NOT intend average citizens to have the kind of weapons they have today.
Queue the moron guns nuts blowing a gasket.
what well regulated militia are you from?
Actually it does. It says 'arms' which meant the small arms carried by the soldiers of the day. Everything else you name is ordnance or equivalent. This is well known scholarship.
Only moron here is you fucktard.
Can you even read?
Where does it define arms in the constitution?
The 2nd doesn't say shit about your AR15, so stop using it in gun debates ffs.
I'm not debating whether guns should be a banned or not. It's too late to ban guns in the U.S. now, the genie is out of the bottle. We're talking about the 2nd and how it says absolutely nothing about what are considered arms and what aren't.