DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Texas state Senate approves bill to post Ten Commandments in public schools

No I haven't. You tried to put forth some stupid argument then blame it on me. This is your usual tactic.

Poor people can own all the guns they wish, if they acquire them. Not having money is not the government infringing on your rights.

Much like, maybe like, not just like.

The government sets the minimum wage at below poverty level which directly creates a situation where people can't afford guns. Therefore the government has set forth guidelines and laws which prevent people from being able to afford guns. Infringement.

It's a line of rationalization that does not have much logic, so you would be better off to give it up.

Food, shelter, and work are more important than guns when you are poor.

You continue to lean on a stupid straw argument. This is not surprising.

Does the government force anyone to work a minimum wage job? This is not like communism where you work the job you are told with the compensation you are given. People can go out and get a better job.

But since you want to play this stupid game. Mandatory fees disenfranchise the poor. Mandatory training (and costs) disenfranchise the poor. Mandatory licensing disenfranchise the poor. (ETA) Handgun rosters disenfranchise the poor due to cheaper guns being disallowed.

Hey, if you can make up a straw man argument that having a magazine that holds 15 rounds instead of 30 rounds somehow prevents you from keeping and bearing firearms, I decided to walk through that door with you. I mean why do you think you're the only one that has the right to make a stupid straw man argument?

Lol waiting for the whatabout response.

Really hard to argue. I just wish we could get some of these evangelical preachers to understand and follow that thinking. They talk it, but clearly don't seem to lead that life.

Except I have defined the word "infringe" and compared it to your statement. You can seek it out, but the gist is the word limit is part of the definition of infringe and you keep using the word limit.

So you are the only one slinging straw in your ridiculous assertions.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no need to "whatabout". It is an invalid contention to start with that is heaped with rediculousness.

Lol .. you never disappoint.

Nothing about having 15 rounds in a magazine or whether you have 30 rounds in a magazine infringes on what is guaranteed in the second amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." What you are attempting to do is go beyond those boundaries into include something that it does not say.

Magazines are part of arms. At least we finally got you to realize the operative clause. Baby steps I suppose. Freedom is scary for some.

And you still can't help admit that a 15 round magazine does not prevent you from keeping and bearing arms.

See there's you issue. You still don't understand the word infringe and its definition. Being forced to use 15, or 10, or 6, round magazines is an infringement.

Here's your issue. Bearing arms is the ability to use a weapon to shoot, hunt or protect yourself with. You wish to expand the word infringe to include things the second amendment doesn't include. I understand what infringe means. I also understand that having less rounds in a magazine doesn't infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.

No my problem is you cannot understand what infringe means. You have yet to define it, you have yet to demonstrate you know what it means. You continue to demonstrate you think it means something else. Also, you skipped the "keep" part. Which has been defined by the court as owning AND purchasing, purchasing or making. Can't own something if you can't acquire it.

Arms includes parts to make the arms. Certain arms require magazines. Magazines are part of arms. Your argument is following the traditional liberal argument that ammunition isn't protected so that can all be banned then you can have ALL the useless guns you wish.

Again, you slag off on people for not believing in the constitution when it is rights you agree with, and when it isn't you don't believe in the constitution. You are the person you rail about. Go yell at yourself in the mirror now.

You keep trying to expand on what is included in those infringements to things it obviously doesn't say. There's a huge difference in saying ammunition isn't included because I agree with you that it is, and claiming that it protects you to the point of having 30 rounds of ammo in a magazine. It seems you have somehow missed that those aren't the same thing.

I'm not the one inventing rights that the constitution doesn't give by claiming it does. You can have the gun. You can fire the gun. You can have the ammunition for the gun. None of that includes having 30 rounds in your magazine.

Limiting a magazine size does not infringe on anyone's right to bear arms. You have explained that multiple times in multiple ways. Someone either doesn't want to accept what is a very black and white debate - especially for someone that appears to be something of an originalist ... or they just want to fight.

I don't keep expanding anything. I said magazines are arms. Parts of arms are arms. This is you not understanding what constitutes arms isn't the things YOU are ok with.

Why not 16 round magazines? How about 20? 25? 29?

I have 2 x 10 round magazines that came with a rifle, every other magazine for the ARs is 30 rounds.

When you ignore what the word infringe means you might be right. But you also ignore the definition of the word. But obviously I am the one you refer to when saying "someone doesn't want to accept what is a very black and white debate", yet it is pretty obvious that I am the one that understands what words mean.

"the action of limiting or undermining something." - infringement.

There you go, definitions are your friend. Well, not your friend since the words meaning doesn't match your desire to limit what arms people may have.

Common sense knows no place within you. Maybe you should go back over the thread and read it slowly. I doubt that will help but it's worth a try.

You and the fall back to the crutch of common sense.

Define the work "infringement" for me.

No-one is infringed upon to BEAR ARMS by infringing on their magazine capacity. You can bear arms with a single shot pistol. You can bear arms with a 12 round magazine. The right to bear has not been infringed. The two things are separate and different.

By having the speed limit at 70 mph - no one is infringing on your right to drive a car. Which is what your argument would mean.

By legally only allowing you to have one wife - no-one is infringing on your right to marriage. Lord knows why anyone would want more - but ... you get the point.

Since you wish to try and move goal posts to make some point. I don't see a need for speed limits. If you operate a vehicle you should be able to do so and incur the penalties for failure to be safe with it.

I don't care how many wives (or husbands) you have. Have at it. It is a religious based restriction mostly that is just habit.

If one limits the right to keep and bear arms, one has infringed upon that right. Again there is a word there that has a definition. All your hand waving doesn't change that.

Interesting you mention 12 rounds, pit mentions 15. I assume you both think that is adequate and thus "common sense". Might wanna get your stories straight (I think daddy Bloomberg is at 10 BTW).

I guess the Texas senate would have to approve posting the religious law and guidance of Islam in public schools as well. We can’t be teaching a religion to Muslim and Buddhist students without teaching and posting religious laws representing all. Why does just the Christian religion get approvals like this and not any other religion? After all public schools are not just attended by Christians.

You seem to be struggling - there is no goal post moving. There are examples for you in the form of analogies. That's pretty common in any discussion. And your "should" - and "have at it" in response do not in any way address the point made.

If someone limits the speed you drive - they do not infringe your right to actually drive a vehicle. Full stop. If someone limits the capacity of your magazine - they do not in any way shape or form restrict or infringe on your right to carry, bear and fire your arms.


Having said that - this is my interpretation of what is written. Funny how an originalist can one day determine that what's written in the constitution means only what's written - and on another day and subject decide to read between the lines and add much more than what is actually written. Your opinion extends the definition of what's written considerably.

As for your attempt to suggest Pit and I are on the same page or have a story - you are mistaken. I'm simply stating my opinion. I picked a random number - it was not a number to suggest that's too high or a good limit. It was a random number.

The only struggle is trying to make you understand the simple meaning of a word. One you continue to ignore because the definition doesn't suit. I also do understand analogies, they can be useful but in this case they are poorly suited to the task. The right to keep and bear arms was specifically protected by the founders. It is not granted by the constitution but it was specifically protected as a "the government can't limit this" type thing. Marriage was not, nor was driving. I do believe both of those to be rights implicitly protected by the 9th, but the right to keep and bear arms is EXPLICITLY protected. That really take it to a different level. Just like your right to free speech. You can talk to people in a room, you have no need to be able to broadcast your speech to millions.

If you would. Define "arms".

[DELETED] Not worth the effort.

So when you don't like the topic (Ten Commandments) just hijack the thread.

No, he still doesn't get it. He is trying to base his argument on the word infringe when nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about how many rounds of ammo your magazine can hold. Having 15 round magazines does not infringe on your right to keep or bear arms. Everyone understands what infringe means but he obviously can't seem to understand what those constitutional guarantees actually include what they don't include. You gave perfect examples in comparison and rather than address them he sidestepped them.

No he clearly understands what the words mean. You tried to sell us that poverty was the government infringing. You are clearly not qualified to speak on this after that nonsense.

Magazines constitute part of arms. That shall not be infringed. Heller clearly tells us that having an alternative means does not allow other means to be infringed.

And you continue to not understand preexisting with rights. The 2A is there to stop the government not the people. It only protects that preexisting right to arms, it does not grant it.

And you can bear arms without having a 30 round magazine. I mean if you wish to speak about an arbitrary number.

And you act like infringe means something other that what I've shown you multiple times. When you limit you infringe. That is the core of the definition of the word.

Yap more now. You are still wrong. When you can define simple words let us know. It'll be step forward for you.

It seems you are the only one having that problem here. If that's the case why not 50 or 100 round barrel magazines? Why not make all automatic weapons as easy to buy as any other weapon? Do you think any "limit" is acceptable?

I am very happy to let this go - because people can and do disagree all the time without an endless back and forth.

With that said - infringe does/can mean to limit and restrict in some way. 100%.

But when you restrict the size of a magazine - you do not prevent or infringe on someone's ability to own, bear or fire/use their arms. To suggest that it does would be to suggest that any size magazine (that is not limitless) means a persons arms are infringed upon.

Not allowing someone to own a fully automatic weapon does infringe. Restricting access to surface to air missiles does infringe. Those are types or armaments, and they are restricted. If you are campaigning for unrestricted magazine size presumably by extension of the way you interpret the 2nd amendment - you must also be campaigning for unrestricted access to any type of weapon? It couldn't be any other way.

As I said - to me it's simple and it's what the constitution actually says. Extrapolating the definition of what is said to try and argue that limiting magazine is an infringement of the right to bear arms is a stretch but you are welcome to your opinion.

I want a tank in my front yard to deter the neighbors and to use on the 4th of July....

A fully automatic 50 caliber should do the job.

Not having one of these clearly infringes on my 2nd amendments rights.... right??

I would imagine that depends on who you ask.