Thread: Automatic weapons

First you said...

-

Originally Posted by Defensor
I answered your question. Anyone who is not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution may possess a firearm.

Then you said...

Originally Posted by Defensor

You tell me. Show me where it forbids anyone from possessing firearms.

Are you saying that no one is forbidden by the Constitution from possessing or owning a firearm including the mentally ill, criminals, drug addicts and children?

Originally Posted by Bourne

First you said...

-

Then you said...



Are you saying that no one is forbidden by the Constitution from possessing or owning a firearm including the mentally ill, criminals, drug addicts and children?

Correct, as those terms are subjective and not Constitutionally-defined.

Originally Posted by Defensor

Correct, as those terms are subjective and not Constitutionally-defined.

Do you then agree that the mentally ill, criminals, addicts and children should be permitted to possess and own firearms?

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Of course I have.

I've demolished your position.

That's why you're resorting, as you're always are, to claiming the arguments that have messed you up aren't valid.

If they actually were not valid, a smart hospital orderly like you would be able to point out exactly where the arguments are flawed.

That you're hiding behind Argument From Authority is all the proof needed that you're defeated but lack the maturity to concede.

The arrogant rhetoric and weak insults about my profession aside, you haven't yet offered a successful counterpoint to my argument that US v. Miller clearly permits the regulation of private firearms possession and ownership. Unless you care to offer an intelligent and supportable couterpoint I'd suggest that I've prevailed in this debate.

Thank you for an interesting discourse.

Originally Posted by Bourne

Do you then agree that the mentally ill, criminals, addicts and children should be permitted to possess and own firearms?

Waiting patiently for your answer Defensor.

Originally Posted by Bourne

The arrogant rhetoric and weak insults about my profession aside, you haven't yet offered a successful counterpoint to my argument that US v. Miller clearly permits the regulation of private firearms possession and ownership. Unless you care to offer an intelligent and supportable couterpoint I'd suggest that I've prevailed in this debate.

Thank you for an interesting discourse.

You haven't yet abandoned your Argument From Authority error.

I've already demonstrated the flaw in US vs Miller.

Depends what you mean by legal.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

I've already demonstrated the flaw in US vs Miller.

You haven't demonstrated anything.

The federal courts have upheld US v. Miller.

Originally Posted by Bourne

You haven't demonstrated anything.

The federal courts have upheld US v. Miller.

You haven't yet abandoned your Argument From Authority error.

I've already demonstrated the flaw in US vs Miller.


------
Cut and paste is a wonderful tool

Originally Posted by Bourne

Waiting patiently for your answer Defensor.

I answered the question numerous times yet you ignored my answer. The Constitution grants no right to regulate firearms for any reason.