Why have you failed?

[vmax]

Capego , who screams "no limits! " also thinks it's okay for a convicted violent felon who after early parole from a liberal judge, gets out of jail and can own a flame thrower and mini gun and point them at you while you are mowing your yard

 

[capego]

The context of my sentence and thought was regarding SCOTUS
I stand by my statement.
Heller was the first time the 2nd was interpreted/ruled as an individual right.

Not argument on the intent of the writing , just the decision

As to bear or bare, that's my fault for posting without my readers on and not catching spell check

You are implying that I agree with the ruling 100% when all I did was spell out a few details of the majority opinion

I think at very best you and me will never be friends and I'll leave it at that.
Good day to you sir

"was established as being an individual right for the first time in American history ."
If your intent was to confine your meaning to SCOTUS interpretation, then you would have said "was established as being an individual right for the first time since the court has ruled on the amendment". But, I understand and forgive you for wanting to worm your way out of your exuberance and the decision did present a positive motion in relation to where things were headed. But, courts do not establish things that were there to begin with. It is not the duty or privilege of the court to make law. It is the privilege of the court to interpret law that is presented with unanticipated coverage in the context of that unanticipated coverage. So, the Heller decision did not establish anything, it simply took a few steps back on the court's past overreach.

With "The limit is to what you can \"bare\" or carry." there is no preface that, "in the court's opinion, the limit is ..." Instead, you are stating something.

"You are implying that I agree with the ruling 100% when all I did was spell out a few details of the majority opinion"
I am not implying you agree 100% with the ruling. I am interpretting your un prefaced and uncommented statement about "carrying" as something you are presenting as truth.
If you are saying you do not agree with the limitation of "carrying", then why would you either not state it with a preface of "according to the court's opinion" or present the truth of the matter later in your post with something such as "but, in actuality, the amendment has nothing to do with carrying". This, again, appears to speak to your weasely nature. Please go listen to Jesse Lee Peterson so you might take some time to inwardly reflect and improve your outward nature.

 

[V-Tach]

 

[capego]

Capego , who screams "no limits! " also thinks it's okay for a convicted violent felon who after early parole from a liberal judge, gets out of jail and can own a flame thrower and mini gun and point them at you while you are mowing your yard

The inner liberal is exposed - appealing to emotion and misdirecting the thread.
Rational people can understand how that situation would resolve. BTW, where would a felon obtain the huge sum required to purchase a minigun, and who would willingly depart with such to such a person?

 

[busykngt]

BUSYKNIGHT ———-> now kicking himself in the ass for not doing something he KNEW better to do:

Check the post count on a new troll.... err, ....I mean, “member”. Gezzz....

When will I never learn?

 

[capego]

When they can not defeat you with reason, they appeal to emotion and eventually become violent.

 

[BRD@66]

9 posts & already callin' names.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

From the first post in the thread:

“In other words, the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms without exception to type or manner”

“Provides” is WRONG. Something closer to “protects” or “recognizes” would be better. Natural right to self defense with arms predates the 2nd.

You’re welcome.

 

[LOCKHART]

Sounds like somebody pissed in capegos Cheerios this morning! LOL!

 

[oldag]

2 things come into play:

I will address that which I is in bold: I love that argument because what it does is support bearing of arms and since it does not state any arms individually then we can only take it as it implies and what was the state of bearing arms at the time this was written.

Standing armies of that time were extremely small and the govt depended upon the 'militia' which is a military force raised from the civilian population and it was expected that this militia would bear their own arms as the govt did not have laid in place the tools of war. Instead the people showed with their own tools and the govt let contracts to manufacture tools of war from clothing to rifles. The best study of this is the state of our military at the onset of WWII.

The second part is is arms themselves. The guns that were privately owned were no different that the few guns the govt owned. Since the framers did not specify any weapon but rather stated to 'bear arms' meaning ALL arms. The weapons of that era were and are not different than the weapons of today.

Let's pinpoint it for the benefit of the left: Long weapon of the day would prob be the 1776 Brown Bess as issued by the govt. And as we travel back in time apply what they had then to what we have now and place a label on it in modern terms then the 1776 Brown Bess was the Assault Weapon of the time. When farmer John showed up with his long rifle it immediately became an Assault weapon also, just not marked US.

Further and at least thru WWII soldiers were encouraged to take the govt issued weapon back home and many did so, it how I got my fathers 1911.

My father went in the Army in 1934 and was on active duty when WWII broke out, the day after Pearl Harbor he left for war in the Pacific. The Army Air Corp did not have enough long arms to go around as they were all being diverted to the Infantry, so my dad along with all the others that left immediately after Pearl was give a mop handle, he did however have his 1911 which had been issued to him when he was in the Horse Cavalry.

Therefore if the left wants to make the argument based upon weapons of that era the I am fine with that because ALL weapons of the era in the thinking of the framers and the govt were in fact Assault Weapons of the era and since the govt no longer issues the 1776 Brown Bess and instead issues an M4, then my AR 10/15 plus any other weapon I own meets the standard today just like it did in 1776.

Yep. The arms owned by citizens were essentially the same as those carried by troops. In fact, some of the citizens' rifles were far superior to the Brown Bess.

 

[benenglish]

Capego - I invite you to step over to the Introductions sub-forum and start a thread where you can say hello and help us get to know you better.

 

[capego]

From the first post in the thread:

“In other words, the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms without exception to type or manner”

“Provides” is WRONG. Something closer to “protects” or “recognizes” would be better. Natural right to self defense with arms predates the 2nd.

You’re welcome.

I agree, I will replace it with guarantees.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

"The biggest problem is that the Left wants to expand Rights under the First..."

No, no they don't.

Accept what 'they' have to say and keep quiet...is their message.

 

[benenglish]

Time for a timeout.