great

SHE is not OBama,,,

and your obvious faux pas about Sen Dianne Feinstein's gender....and your lack of knowledge of her anti-gun comment... discredits any and all comments you make about firearms rights. In other words, you dont know chickensh!t from chicken salad about the subject. But you do what you do best and spin away.....

what has any of that to do with having the common sense to know that Feinstein is not Obama?


or that Feinsteins statements are not Obamas statements

I dont know who you are , but what you post here is not MY statements either,,,,

no spin required,, just good old fashioned logic and common sense

just like its common sense that a person can have knowledge about certain issues without being required to know everything any public image has had to say on that issue

“ The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.

Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf




“ To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.

Adolf Hilted
Mein Kampf

still no one will even acknowledge the Osoka school massacre even though I've mentioned it twice, but columbine has been mentioned a few times. ...one was a knife one was gun, but only the gun one gets mentioned. ...hmmmm

How would you know what Feinstein's statement about firearms was? You didnt even know her gender.

Click here to read a news story about the Osoka school massacre published on the day that it happened.

they only see what they want to see, which isn't always on logic's side...

The 2nd amendment, is only obsolete...
to those who fear it.

and how many mass knifings are there here in america,,,

I dont care if her statement was the sky is blue

by definition if SHE stated it,, its not OBamas statement its HER statement

RG:
Know it or not
believe it or not
like it or not
admit it or not,
Out of a population of over 300 million, there are some mentally unwell citizens that would die for the chance to kill half our population, or at least, to kill off 90% of Los Angeles, Chicago, or Atlanta.

A nuclear weapon, purchased from $cash-strapped North Korea could accomplish that.
AND!!
North Korea might set the $price low enough for the maniac to afford it; as they could then claim credit for the kill.

What about this 18th Century article of amendment makes you think it was intended to protect thermonuclear weapons?

i'm not sure what your reaching for ... the 2nd amendment is about guns, not nukes, rocket launchers, rpg's, or anything else your spinning off to here... great democratic idiocracy you have going on...

Actually, the exact wording is as follows:

B. O. R. ARTICLE #2: Ratified December 15, 1791
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.

Please note the word: "Arms"

What does "Arms" mean?

By formal dictionary definition, "Arms" include everything from a blade, to MIRV [m(ultiple) i(ndependently-targeted) r(eentry) v(ehicles)].

arms, at the time, meant guns... nothing else... you shouldn't think so hard, it's not really that complicated... does any citizen need a nuke? i think not... anyone that says we need a RPG, a 50 cal machine gun, or anything besides common guns for self protection is the exact opposite of what your saying, there is a happy medium in the middle...

Topic title:

Your reply:

Therefore your answer is: Yes. 2A is obsolete.

You complicate it, pretending "Arms" has limited meaning.

I have simplified it. "Arms" means what the dictionary says it means. And as I've already posted, the dictionary says it includes "nuclear arms".

That's immaterial.
It's about legal right, not practical need.

Our Constitution's 2nd Amendment, as worded, protects individual citizen's right "to keep and bear Arms". And the dictionary definition of "Arms" includes nukes.

It's that simple.
Why complicate it?

at the time the constitution was written, there was no WMD's (nukes). the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to give the people the ability to defend themselves and to resist in the situation the government became tyrannical. that meant, the people should be able to own any weapons the government would have. they didnt know we were going to have the kind of technology we have today. so in theory, i guess you could say we should be allowed to own nukes. but common sense would tell you that not everyone can be trusted with something that devastating. as far as 50 cal machine guns and things like that, i believe we should be able to own them. nukes on the other hand i dont think any person should be able to own, which again is common sense. but if our government were to become tyrannical and they have 50 cal machine guns to fight us with, we should be able to have the same to fight back with. thats the purpose of the 2nd amendment, to be able to defend yourself from others INCLUDING government. so IMO the only limits on the 2nd amendment (according to the founders) is whatever the government can own, so can the citizens. now if the founders had known about nuclear weapons, who knows what they would have thought about that. but the purpose of 2A was for people to be able to protect themselves from the government, so if government can have full auto rifles and 50 cals and all that crap, so should we the people.

why bother, tom... they are just going to bring up all this irrelevant crap up anyway... if they can't agree there's a happy medium, there's no point in even trying to discuss anything in the first place... one thing tho, the goverment will have the upper hand in protecting itself from certain groups of people... they have a right to have whatever it takes to keep us and them safe from certian factions that would be detrimental to the US... which, IMO, doesn't mean taking all guns away, but there is no need for any citizen to have a nuke, 50 cal, or a fully automatic weapon...

It is a titanic blunder to conflate that with law.