Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire tjust caused a liberal to have a WTF moment

Yes, Almost [bleep] but not quite there.

Excellent points, gitem. Well done.

I usually counter that "freedom of the press" must only apply to manual printing presses with hand-set type. And that "freedom of speech" must only apply to face-to-face verbal communication.

Ha! Guys these are great arguments! Nicely said! Too logical for the Liberal mindset to absorb...besides it smashes the pre-conceived notions and the pablum they have been fed.

Boy, isn't that the truth.

OP good job. Instead of losing your head and insulting someone or acting like an ignorant redneck gun whacko you calmly explained the differences using facts and sound arguements and actually possibly changed a mind who may go out and even tell his ignorant voter friends.

Like Travis said I don't think this was a real liberal just an uniformed ignorant voter who only gets his news from John Stewart and occasionally CNN. I think this describes most of the "liberals" in this country. Just independant people who actually probably lean conservative but when you listen to the MSM no wonder they think Repubs are evil and guns are bad etc. That is what the news tells them.

.


That's a guy who hast figured out he is gay yet....while the rest of u have.

And the Brown Bess musket was the M16 of its day.

Paul

You can do that?


I'm gonna be RICH!!!!

I sent that to one of my Irish Democrap drinking buddies and he didn't get it!

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it what type of Arms?

How do u mean 496?

Are you asking from the stance where do the libs have the right to tell us what weNEED?

Or from the stance that most certainly cannot dictate to us the types of arms we may bear?

You're such a softy. How about an axe so he's decapitated? Makes for a better liberal.

Both... I know Heller tells us what kind of arms. But were does it say in the 2nd Amendment? I think the Founders Fathers did see into the future.

What if in 10 years, 30 years, 50 years the weapons we have now become like the black powder weapons out dated. How will the 2nd amendment be interpreted then?

I think the founding fathers absolutely knew that technology in firearms would advance and I believe that is the express reason that they did not write musket, or rifled musket. If you look at the original militia act. It states that they shall have at the ready a suitable musket or FIRELOCK. Now I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that the reference to firelock could be inferred that were speaking of match locks or wheel locks. Could anyone provide further analysis on that?

I have often wondered about the word BEAR in that glorious phrase. Were they meaning it literally and absolutely that we were permitted to only have arms that we may bear in our hands, or were artillery pieces included?

Excellent work. 1 down, how many to go...?

Well, I don't subscribe to the "living document" philosophy. I have always believed that the constitution is written, plainly and simply and means exactly what it says. So in my opinion the firearms we may see in the future would fall under the protection of 2A.

My basis for that theory is that just as the 2A does not specifically say musket it also does not say firearm. It just says arms.

The battle cry: TO ARMS, TO ARMS. has been said for ages. Did you ever hear them say TO SWORDS? or TO PIKES?

Of course they did. I'm sure they understood the progression from wheel lock to flint lock.