POLITICS NRA in financial trouble, per the NRA

Jay, if you ever got under my skin, I’d let you know.

Get some rest.

 

These are what arms are: they are stored in armories.

These are not what arms are:

Airplanes. They are stored in hangers. There is no right to keep and bear hangs.

Explosives. They are stored in bunkers. There is no right to keep and bear bunks.

ICBMs. These are sometimes stored in bunkers. Sometimes in silos. There is no right to keep and bear sils.

So what is in an armory?

Handguns. Long guns. Knives. Mortar tubes.

But the ammo is sold separately. And it’s in a bunker...

 

If grass is a weapon, can it be made illegal to grow a lawn while simultaneously being your right to have a lawn?

 

Don’t think it’s a permit, per se, but yes.

 

Federally speaking, grass is illegal still.

 

I mean Kentucky blue or fescue

 

You have no right to have a lawn, that’s why people in apartments aren’t having their rights violated.

But you’d still be able to in Florida, because of stand your ground.

 

Yes, but let's say you have a constitutionally guaranteed right to a lawn. Can it be made illegal to grow one, or is that not clearly a component of one having a lawn?

In other words, I can accept that one could be barred from selling weapons while still having a right to bear them. I reject the notion that one can have an unfettered right to any and all manner of personal arms, but cannot themselves personally manufacture one. I could accept that from someone who believes the second amendment allows for the regulation of firearms, but it's absurd from someone who believes the 2nd amendment forbids any sort of registration, licensing, or regulation of firearms. That's balogne. Anything said about 3D printed guns or their manufacture could be said about conventional weapons and their modification or construction. I can order components of all sorts of weapons and assemble them. 3D printing isn't much different.

 

How is that?

 

Where is the word create or manufacture in the 2nd Amendment?

Not implied. Not interpreted. Stated.

 

What does keep mean?

What does bear mean?

Which of those words mean manufacture?

 

Bear is to carry or support. Assembling a firearm is easily part of bearing one. I am sure the FF did not contemplate 3D printing, but the FF clearly didn't set the right to bear arms with the intent that it could be circumvented by banning the manufacture of arms.

 

So?

 

No, assembling a firearm is not part of bearing one. easily or otherwise. The FFs deemed commerce to be something government could regulate, but not to ban, to regulate, so they did see a means by which the 2A could be limited by limiting commerce, otherwise they could have simple said "Congress shall enact no law ..." like they did with the 1st.

The question you are asking is the difference between a direct and literal interpretation of the Constitution, and your interpretation. And all you've concluded is that you cannot understand how people don't follow your interpretation, despite the massive amount of leaps to get there.

 

So thus. It isn't a part of the 2A. There isn't even a right to modify, it just makes it more convenient to allow it, since all manufactures would do would create various models, since they have the legal ability to manufacture.

But there is no right to manufacture. That's why you have to have a business licenses and meet all kinds of ATF requirements to build firearms. In fact, you can't even have a barrel length of certain length, because you might assemble a new weapon from it.

 

It was a steady stroll, no leaps. If 3D printing guns can be banned, any kind can be.

 

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it allow for manufacturing?

 

Nowhere, we can ban the manufacture, sale and creation of any particular type of weapon for the general public. Got it.

 

Let me put it to you like this IP, and let’s see if your brain can connect the dots:

If Colt comes out today with a 3D printed gun, that meets all manufacturing laws, would it be banned?

No. A gun that has been 3D printed is not what is being banned.

Thus, it isn’t about the gun. It’s about the process.

So reiterate: it isn’t about the gun.

 

For me, the difficulty of the 2nd Amendment is the time it was written in vs technological advances since 1790. So we have a Right on one side, but on the other side we have gone from muzzle loading smooth bored muskets to automatic/semi-automatic rifles with quick changing magazines holding 30+ rounds of ammunition.

Never mind 20mm miniguns, 120mm sabot canons and 500lb bombs and armed aircraft. And now drones.

So where is the cutoff of right to own and bear vs the safety of the populace? And the NRA has over the last few decades not wanted to have this conversation, but simply [ock cay] blocked any attempt whatsoever at regulation.