Piers Morgan losing it again

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Have you not read your leftist manual? Or is is manuel? Anyway, BARE arms in the leftist interpetation is the right to wear short sleeved shirts. Try to keep up with modern day history for christs sake.:D
More...

Yes, yes, I understand. I'm trying to have a civil debate on the subject.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

There's no question about it, even during the civil war you could argue that the Merrimack and Monitor were privately funded. I'm not disputing anything your link quotes or refers to, nor that privateers were relied on to support war efforts in order to add to an organized force. I'm speaking strictly to the Constitution and the Right to Bear Arms.
More...

Good then we're in agreement on something.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

Have you not read your leftist manual? Or is is manuel? Anyway, BARE arms in the leftist interpetation is the right to wear short sleeved shirts. Try to keep up with modern day history for christs sake.:D
More...

Shame shame, asshole:D
 
Quote from bigarrow:

Good then we're in agreement on something.
More...

Ah, so it's ok for me to cede points to you, but you won't dare do the same in return, is that it?

I should have known, I guess. Willingness to debate only goes so far as I see your point, but not the other way around.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

Ah, so it's ok for me to cede points to you, but you won't dare do the same in return, is that it?

I should have known, I guess. Willingness to debate only goes so far as I see your point, but not the other way around.
More...

Ivan....I like Ivan better, hope you don't mind....

I do not see where the counterpoint was made. Not in your case, but in the counterparty. Sometimes salvos are fired in preparation for the full volley.

Just sayin.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

There's no question about it, even during the civil war you could argue that the Merrimack and Monitor were privately funded. I'm not disputing anything your link quotes or refers to, nor that privateers were relied on to support war efforts in order to add to an organized force. I'm speaking strictly to the Constitution and the Right to Bear Arms.
More...

And so, have we actually gone backwards with Citizens United?
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

Ah, so it's ok for me to cede points to you, but you won't dare do the same in return, is that it?

I should have known, I guess. Willingness to debate only goes so far as I see your point, but not the other way around.
More...

I don't know what I'm supposed to cede. Originally the constitution protected the rights of citizens to own all arms, including guns. Now the right is restricted to only some guns.

Edit: in my opinion, I'm not an expert in this field.
 
Quote from RCG Trader:

Ivan....I like Ivan better, hope you don't mind....

I do not see where the counterpoint was made. Not in your case, but in the counterparty. Sometimes salvos are fired in preparation for the full volley.

Just sayin.
More...

I don't mind Ivan if you prefer that moniker.

I was arguing that the Constitution has two real interpretations for arms- one on the state level (in terms of a militia) and one on the personal level, where "arms" is obviously meant to be "guns" or "firearms". bigarrow pointed out that this could be cannons and warships, etc. I responded that that could be on the militia level, yes, but there's no way the founders would mean "arms" for individuals meant military machinery of any sort.

bigarrow provided a source that detailed how privateers had been used in wars or other military engagements (was an interesting read). These privateers were singular owners of ships and other large scale objects (armed as such, incidentally to protect themselves from pirates, etc) and were hired to supplement military engagements accordingly.

My sole point was the Forefather's intent of the word "arms" in usage to generally mean "guns" on the individual level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top