If true this aint good. Time to step up. Gun control starting. True??

[Engineer]

"bear arms" is NOT "bear firearms", gentlemen.

The founders had firearms.

Do you think they were establishing the right for everyone to not have their arms cut off?  :-\

[chrishallett83]

I repeat.

You repeat what?

[chrishallett83]

The founders had firearms.

They also had slaves.

Do you think they were establishing the right for everyone to not have their arms cut off?  :-\

No, they were establishing the right of the people to defend themselves against foreign forces if need be. Where does it say you have a protected right to own a firearm?

[Nutz4sand]

Chris I cannot believe you can be this arrogant.

You sound like a little kid who thinks no one should have ice cream just cause you dropped yours on the dirty sidewalk and are jealous.

If you cannot undestand they were talking about guns I suggest a few refresher courses on practical reading.

Also note that since you gave yours up it means you have no rights to speak of it. Freedom aint free.

 George Washington:
"A free people ought to be armed."

You don't bring a knife (sword) to a gun fight. Not if you want to win.

And Ben Franklin stated this:

Ben Franklin admonishes; "THOSE WHO WOULD GIVE UP LIBERTIES TO OBTAIN FREEDOM DESERVE NEITHER.

So we know where you stand. If your happy being one persons decision aways from being a slave good for you. You trust just anyone to make your lifes choices for you?

I call that gullible.

The fact that you are trying to argue it does not mean a gun or "firearm" means you have not read jack-doodle about it nor understand any of what happened that lead to our 2nd admendment.

If you would give up our Second amendment you would also give up our first.

Which is basically saying you aint got a right to say anything about it since you failed to protect yourself.

When someone comes at you with a gun be sure to scare him away with your pocket knife. Or did you give those up too?

[Boostinjdm]

[Nutz4sand]

Your with him... But don't intend to give yours up?

Nothing like disagreeing with yourself.

Again arms meant guns. Thats what they had when the Constitution was drafted.

If you cannot see that I feel for you.

[Nutz4sand]

[Boostinjdm]

Having trouble reading there Nutz?
My quote function isn't working, so here's a copy and paste.
I highlighted the words you need to pay attention to.

 
I am actually with chris on his point about firearms not being mentioned. 
I don't intend to give mine up.  But if the right justices were all in place, they could attempt to take away everything but our sporks and still be in line with "the right to bear arms".    As long as they were good quality sporks anyways....

I see you posted again.  I'm glad you associate "arms" with "weapon".  It says we have a right to have a weapon.  It doesn't say anything about a weapon of our choosing, or any type of weapon specifically.  So basicly, if all we were left with is a pointy stick (or spork ) we would still be technically bearing arms.

[Nutz4sand]

No no trouble reading at all.

I caught where you said "his point". But if you AGREE with it why doin't you live by it and give the guns up?

 

[Nutz4sand]

I would also add that the "Right Justices" would not attempt to take the guns. Those would be the "wrong justices".

If you get my drift.

[Boostinjdm]

No no trouble reading at all.

You sure?  Try again...
This time try reading the words on the screen, all of them, in order, and only what's on the screen.

[Boostinjdm]

I would also add that the "Right Justices" would not attempt to take the guns. Those would be the "wrong justices".

If you get my drift.

"Right justices" and "Wrong justices" depends on the goal.
If the goal was to take away our guns then they would indeed be the "right" justices.
If the goal was to keep our guns, they would be the "wrong" justices.

[Nutz4sand]

Trees in the way of the forest eh Boost?

So by your way of logic.

Since arms can mean sporks.

Freedom of speech can mean ONLY what they want you to say?

[Boostinjdm]

how bout your logic.

Spose any nut case should be allowed to have his own nuke?

[Nutz4sand]

"Right justices" and "Wrong justices" depends on the goal.
If the goal was to take away our guns then they would indeed be the "right" justices.
If the goal was to keep our guns, they would be the "wrong" justices.

So the wrong justices would allow us to keep our guns?
You say I cannot read when you cannot even seem to write.

A nutcase with a nuke? Yah we got that now.

But it that meant freedom, yes.

When the constitution was drafted they had NO idea what a "nuke" was.  Guns/cannons were the best of the best in those days.

If its needed to hold those at bay who would take your freedoms then yes. 

If you do not agree then give the guns away and move to a country where they would be happy to subjugate you.


The best part is you lost the arguement and so you try to play the Nuke trump card! It won't work cause if they nuked us they ruin there lives too! But to take away the measly guns from us then they can control us. 

You can donate your guns to DTS and we can raffle them off or have a drawing to see who gets what ones.

Since you don't agree you should have them.