New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

[ClydeR]

You’re ignoring, again, where it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Arms. When the Founding Fathers referred to "arms," did they mean semi-automatic weapons equipped with large magazines? Or should we interpret the Constitution based on the meaning of words at the time?

[Gelston]

Arms. When the Founding Fathers referred to "arms," did they mean semi-automatic weapons equipped with large magazines? Or should we interpret the Constitution based on the meaning of words at the time?

When they wrote about the freedom of speech did they only mean talking or did they also mean the internet and telephones and such?

The Constitution was written by people who literally JUST revolted against an oppressive Government. I feel confident in saying they 100% meant weapons applicable to the time should be available for a repeat if necessary.

[Suppressed Poet]

Arms. When the Founding Fathers referred to "arms," did they mean semi-automatic weapons equipped with large magazines? Or should we interpret the Constitution based on the meaning of words at the time?

Arms:
noun
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.

The word has the same meaning today as it did in 1790.

If they intended the second amendment to be restrictive in that way, it would have been written something like: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear muskets, shall not be infringed.

But it doesn’t say that…

[ClydeR]

Arms:
noun
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.

The word has the same meaning today as it did in 1790.

If they intended the second amendment to be restrictive in that way, it would have been written something like: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear muskets, shall not be infringed.

But it doesn’t say that…

That's good to know, because I definitely want a ZF1.

[Seran]

So I’ll go down to your level and let’s take God completely out of the equation.

Imagine this situation: A 5’4” 120 lbs single mom nurse is walking home alone from a late night double-shift in NYC when a 6’2” 225 lbs male knocks her to the ground with evil intentions to rape and murder this woman.

Does this woman have the right to defend herself? And if so, is that right granted to her by our government or does it go beyond that to something like survival & protection is simply natural to us as human beings? What kind of weapon gives this woman the best chance to survive such an encounter? And last, do you really think the woman in this situation should have to prove to the government her “special needs” and in reality be denied under any circumstances to carry such life-saving equipment?

A fertilized ovum isn't a person, a nonviable fetus is not a person. Your comparison is not even remotely similar enough to bother considering.

[Seran]

Let's forget the faulty argument that Republicans are trying to grant rights to cells. What they really mean is they're granting old Christian men the right to deny the personal freedoms and body autonomy of those who don't follow Judeo-Christian dogma.

[Gelston]

A fertilized ovum isn't a person, a nonviable fetus is not a person. Your comparison is not even remotely similar enough to bother considering.

wtf, we aren't talking about abortion in this thread.

[Gelston]

Let's forget the faulty argument that Republicans are trying to grant rights to cells. What they really mean is they're granting old Christian men the right to deny the personal freedoms and body autonomy of those who don't follow Judeo-Christian dogma.

What does this have to do with New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen?

[Seran]

The Christian radicalism of the Supreme Court is worth mentioning in every thread, tool.

[beldannon5]

seran doesn't understand that, he only understands hate