Holder: I want an Assault Weapons ban!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Has anyone you have met ever been so self-congratulatory, with so little to work with, as Cali?

It's like he invented the "you want to own a tank" argument. He thinks himself very clever.

"Clever" is a relative term. In this company, I find myself to be brilliantly clever.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So there ARE weapons citizens shouldn't own, in which case the right to own arms is qualified.

Agreed. Like I said, that's why you lost.

the 2nd amendment doesn't say "weapon". It says "arms".

you lose.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

the 2nd amendment doesn't say "weapon". It says "arms".

you lose.

I think this aptly sums up the depth of your arguments:

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think this aptly sums up the depth of your arguments:

Are you capable of being anything other than arrogant?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You did- you said it above and below:

"I just said there were no qualifiers in the 2nd Amendment."

-IlPad



You do have the right to own weapons. Just not any weapon you want.



These anger issues just solidify my opinion that people like you shouldn't have assault weapons.

Your lawyer tricks don't work on me.

I'll type this really slow so you can understand - Where in the constitution does it mention qualifiers for weapons?

I'm not angry. Not at all. But if you want to believe that to make yourself feel superior, by all means believe it.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So there ARE weapons citizens shouldn't own, in which case the right to own arms is qualified.

Agreed. Like I said, that's why you lost.

Try again.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Your lawyer tricks don't work on me.

I'll type this really slow so you can understand - Where in the constitution does it mention qualifiers for weapons?

I'm not angry. Not at all. But if you want to believe that to make yourself feel superior, by all means believe it.

It is implicit. Just as it is implicit there are qualifiers on every other right listed in the Constitution.

Once again, tell me any right in the Constitution (other than guns, since you are going to be unreasonable on that one) that is not qualified whatsoever.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is implicit. Just as it is implicit there are qualifiers on every other right listed in the Constitution.

Once again, tell me any right in the Constitution (other than guns, since you are going to be unreasonable on that one) that is not qualified whatsoever.

Unreasonable? Because I support the 2nd Amendment and you don't?

"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."

Where are the qualifiers?

I'll concede that there qualifiers in the other Amendments.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Unreasonable? Because I support the 2nd Amendment and you don't?

"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."

Where are the qualifiers?

I'll concede that there qualifiers in the other Amendments.

Great. Show me the text in the first amendment that provides the qualifier we both agree exists.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Great. Show me the text in the first amendment that provides the qualifier we both agree exists.

I'll leave that to you, as you're the one who mentioned that qualifiers are implied in every other right listed in the Constitution.