Yep, They're Coming to Take Our Guns!

[Mad American]

I'm simply pointing out that your stance that "arms" only applied to single shot muzzle loaders because that is all that was available is factually incorrect, and what you think the definition of the press should be is different from what it was in 1789 as well.

We all know that the dictionary is periodically amended, definition/words added and deleted. The irony that you use a 21st century internet dictionary to attempt to prove a definition from 1789 is noted. Find a 1789 dictionary then we can accurately discuss definitions.

No matter how much you want to believe differently, I do not "run away". Again, if you would actually READ the conversations you will see that I will gladly continue to engage in civil debate. However, I am not going to be drawn into one of your endless "holier than thou" link, quote, and insult fests. When you post like an adult, you will replied to like an adult...likewise when you post your trolling insults that offer nothing to the conversation, other than to garner a response like a spoiled child demanding attention, you will be ignored. That choice is yours not mine.

[Mad American]

OK, so let me get this straight. It is your contention that, in 1789, the founders knew that 200 years later through technology "the press" would include radio, internet, cable, satellite and all the other numerous ways of "information gathering", and intended that they be free to use them? Likewise, it is also your contention that the founders knew 200 years later technology would have decreased reload time, decreased lock time, and increased capacity and intended that technology NOT be used and only the right to keep and bear single shot muzzle loaders would not be infringed?

[O Really]

Bottom line..."arms" was not defined and is therefore subject to subsequent judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court could, theoretically, decide that "arms" as used in the Second means individual type firearms - rifles, handguns, yada. Or it could find that "arms" means anything typically used as a weapon. Historically, "bear arms" has meant to wield a weapon, and at the time of the Amendment, it would likely have been understood as one term, i.e. "bear arms" not "bear" "arms." Eventually, that Supreme Court decision may be made - until it is, the rest of us are just repeating same ol' same ol' in a tiresome and unending circle.

[Mad American]

OK, so let me get this straight. It is your contention that, in 1789, the founders knew that 200 years later through technology "the press" would include radio, internet, cable, satellite and all the other numerous ways of "information gathering", and intended that they be free to use them?

Sigh, again, the founders were referring to the institution of news gathering. The means and hardware had nothing to do with it.

Likewise, it is also your contention that the founders knew 200 years later technology would have decreased reload time, decreased lock time, and increased capacity and intended that technology NOT be used and only the right to keep and bear single shot muzzle loaders would not be infringed?

Sigh, again, the founders knew the "Arms" they knew. It's silly to think they meant we had a personal right to any killing machine we could devise. The point is proven by the fact that the NRA never even tried to sue to overturn the 1994 assault weapons ban, they knew they would lose.

They also only knew the means and hardware of of news gathering at their time. You can not apply one to modern times and not the other that is equally silly.

You cannot believe otherwise unless you also believe we have a right to personal possession of nukes and tanks.
I have repeatedly said otherwise. No matter how many times you reiterate your incorrect assumption it will not make it true. For the record and one last time....I think "arms" should apply to handheld weapons that fire one non exploding (detonating) projectile or semi-contained group of projectiles (shotguns) per each trigger pull. Period

[Sometime Lefty]

So could a person own a SMAW as long as they only used practice rounds?

[Mad American]

So could a person own a SMAW as long as they only used practice rounds?

No. I made the same mistake in the "bickering" thread and left out self sustaining projectile propulsion, which should be illegal. That would deal with rockets and such.

[Mad American]

OK, so let me get this straight. It is your contention that, in 1789, the founders knew that 200 years later through technology "the press" would include radio, internet, cable, satellite and all the other numerous ways of "information gathering", and intended that they be free to use them?

Sigh, again, the founders were referring to the institution of news gathering. The means and hardware had nothing to do with it.

Likewise, it is also your contention that the founders knew 200 years later technology would have decreased reload time, decreased lock time, and increased capacity and intended that technology NOT be used and only the right to keep and bear single shot muzzle loaders would not be infringed?

Sigh, again, the founders knew the "Arms" they knew. It's silly to think they meant we had a personal right to any killing machine we could devise. The point is proven by the fact that the NRA never even tried to sue to overturn the 1994 assault weapons ban, they knew they would lose.

They also only knew the means and hardware of of news gathering at their time. You can not apply one to modern times and not the other that is equally silly.

Are you really struggling so with this or are you trolling? "The press" was and remains news gathering. It had nothing to do with means and hardware, whereas "Arms" are by definition hardware.

You cannot believe otherwise unless you also believe we have a right to personal possession of nukes and tanks.

I have repeatedly said otherwise. No matter how many times you reiterate your incorrect assumption it will not make it true. For the record and one last time....I think "arms" should apply to handheld weapons that fire one non exploding (detonating) projectile or semi-contained group of projectiles (shotguns) per each trigger pull. Period

What you have repeatedly done and are doing again is define "Arms" beyond the definition in 1789. If you get to do that then someone else can claim that it includes flamethrowers, Stingers, grenade launchers, automatic weapons, suit case nukes and other bear-able (so maybe not tanks) weaponry and you don't have a leg to stand on in disputing them.

We can all see that you've ducked the fact that the NRA never challenged the 1994 assault weapons ban based on your invented definition because they knew they'd lose. You just don't get to add a new definition to what the founders understood the word to mean - the "Arms" at the time.

Likewise neither do you get to add a new definition to what the founders understood a word to mean. You must accept that The Constitution as a whole only applies to what was known at the time or that it moves with technology. You can not have it both ways.

The NRA never challenged the 94 law because it was temporary and ineffective

It's a simple concept and your articulate insistence on utterly failing to grasp it has never been matched here by anyone other than nascarfan88. It's a combination of moderate intelligence with the complete inability to ever admit to yourself that a fact or train of logic that you've settled on makes no sense.

Your obsession is noted...again. In addition, as shown above your train of logic is the one that makes no sense. The Constitution as a whole lives and moves within the technology of the day or is restricted to what was known at the time.

[Mad American]

I forgot about the "handheld", "non exploding", "per each trigger pull", "self sustaining projectile propulsion" clauses in the 2nd Amendment. You win, and the NRA was really, really, really stupid to not sue to overturn the 1994 assault weapons ban. They should have hired you as their lawyer.

Tell us vrede how are those restrictions different from a single shot muzzle-loader of the time???

[Crock Hunter]

I forgot about the "handheld", "non exploding", "per each trigger pull", "self sustaining projectile propulsion" clauses in the 2nd Amendment. You win, and the NRA was really, really, really stupid to not sue to overturn the 1994 assault weapons ban. They should have hired you as their lawyer.

Tell us vrede how are those restrictions different from a single shot muzzle-loader of the time???

Soooo.... should a deranged shooter entered YOUR child's classroom... which would you prefer they bring... . a modern assault rifle or a musket... . .

Seriously MA (or Phantom or scgunxxx or RD . .. .) .. if you can't or won't admit that there are several orders of magnitude difference in these firearms then you will have to be removed from the discussion...

There is an obvious and substantial difference.. it must be addressed in order to move forward... ..

[Crock Hunter]

. Which would you rather have, a 1789 musket or a modern rifle meeting your definition? Be honest.

That too was my point... if such gun advocates cannot address the orders of magnitude difference in these firearms then they make no relevant contribution to the discussion...

[Crock Hunter]

Sorry, I try to give credit ("as _____ says") when I'm restating a point just made by another.

My guess: He'll beat his chest and say, "I'll get him with the first shot so it doesn't matter."

Hope I didn't offend.. I certainly wasn't ...

It's just that it's difficult for me to imagine how one become so obtuse as to stand firm on "18th Century Muzzle Loader = Modern Assault Weapon" There's no way to reach that conclusion without a significant rejection of reality.. .

[Mad American]

I forgot about the "handheld", "non exploding", "per each trigger pull", "self sustaining projectile propulsion" clauses in the 2nd Amendment. You win, and the NRA was really, really, really stupid to not sue to overturn the 1994 assault weapons ban. They should have hired you as their lawyer.

Tell us vrede how are those restrictions different from a single shot muzzle-loader of the time???

I don't have to. Imagine being in a firefight with someone of your same skills. Which would you rather have, the best 1789 musket or the best modern rifle meeting your definition? Be honest.

Neither. I'll settle for a Remington 700 BOLT ACTION in 300 Win Mag with a 3X9X40 Redfield Revolution on top zeroed at 300 yards. However, your inability or refusal to attempt to point out the differences is noted.

[Mad American]

I forgot about the "handheld", "non exploding", "per each trigger pull", "self sustaining projectile propulsion" clauses in the 2nd Amendment. You win, and the NRA was really, really, really stupid to not sue to overturn the 1994 assault weapons ban. They should have hired you as their lawyer.

Tell us vrede how are those restrictions different from a single shot muzzle-loader of the time???

Soooo.... should a deranged shooter entered YOUR child's classroom... which would you prefer they bring... . a modern assault rifle or a musket... . .

Seriously MA (or Phantom or scgunxxx or RD . .. .) .. if you can't or won't admit that there are several orders of magnitude difference in these firearms then you will have to be removed from the discussion...

There is an obvious and substantial difference.. it must be addressed in order to move forward... ..

I would prefer a deranged shooter never make it to my child's classroom. I prefer they be left dead 2 feet inside the door.

I've never claimed the guns today are "equal" to 1789 period weapons. I have repeatedly said that technology has decreased lock time, decreased reload time, and increased capacity. However, today's modern sporting arms are equal in the fact that they fire a single round for each pull of the trigger.

[O Really]

I forgot about the "handheld", "non exploding", "per each trigger pull", "self sustaining projectile propulsion" clauses in the 2nd Amendment. You win, and the NRA was really, really, really stupid to not sue to overturn the 1994 assault weapons ban. They should have hired you as their lawyer.

Tell us vrede how are those restrictions different from a single shot muzzle-loader of the time???

I don't have to. Imagine being in a firefight with someone of your same skills. Which would you rather have, the best 1789 musket or the best modern rifle meeting your definition? Be honest.

If I were going to dodge your question, I think I'd prefer the potential criminal with a gun not get into the school, rather than letting him get "two feet in the door."

[Mad American]

Imagine being in a firefight with someone of your same skills. Which would you rather have, the best 1789 musket or the best modern rifle meeting your definition? Be honest.

Neither. I'll settle for a Remington 700 BOLT ACTION in 300 Win Mag with a 3X9X40 Redfield Revolution on top zeroed at 300 yards. However, your inability or refusal to attempt to point out the differences is noted.

Well, I meant your idea of best, not someone else's. No need for me to answer, you made my point. Thanks for your honesty.

That is my idea of best. Seeing as how I own and am quiet proficient with that exact set up....that is all I would need.

By the way I did answer crock's question. We are dealing with a hypothetical situation so I gave my preferred answer.

[Crock Hunter]

I would prefer a deranged shooter never make it to my child's classroom. I prefer they be left dead 2 feet inside the door..

It was a straightforward question but as expected.. like your days posting as Phantom109... you're simply too morally bankrupt to engage in any substantiate discussion of the issue..

[Mad American]

None of your phrase's are in the 2nd. It's indefensible to claim that the definition conveniently moves just as far as you want it to and no further.

No they aren't vrede.....they match YOUR definition of a single shot muzzle loader which is ALSO NOT in the 2nd!

Are you claiming that you can channel the founders? Their choice not to elaborate gives Congress the power to define "Arms", save for banning weapons that existed in 1789.

Not claiming that at all...are you? You are the one that keeps talking about their intent was only single shot muzzle loaders. I am merely pointing out that either The Constitution fits whatever is available at the time as a whole or it does not. You are trying to make it apply to modern day in one amendment while saying that it can not in another.

[Mad American]

I would prefer a deranged shooter never make it to my child's classroom. I prefer they be left dead 2 feet inside the door..

It was a straightforward question but as expected.. like your days posting as Phantom109... you're simply too morally bankrupt to engage in any substantiate discussion of the issue..

I've been involved in this discussion in several different threads. I gave you a straight forward answer as well. After all it was an entirely hypothetical situation. Now if you care to debate real world issues with civility and leave out the hypotheticals I'm more than happy to oblige.

[Crock Hunter]

Now if you care to debate real world issues with civility and leave out the hypotheticals I'm more than happy to oblige.

I'd be delighted to discuss "real world" gun issues.. .. . unfortunately.. you do not ..

Hypotheticals make up the core of your fears.... "What if a robber breaks in... What if shooting breaks out at Dennys. What's the best round to use if someone cuts me off on the highway.. ."

The reason you dodged my "hypothetical" question was simply that a clear answer destroys your entire argument.. .

[Crock Hunter]

I've been involved in this discussion in several different threads.

Sure 13 ... whatever you say..