[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Don Cicchetti

I'm new here.

If you say so.

I would think that if you disagree with the court, that you would at least come up with some solid reasons why? I don't see it so far.

The text of the second ammendment of the US, along with the history that led to it. Read the thread.

No, the intent and content of the paper makes it true. Have you read it? Please read it before you misquote it.

You are the one who quoted it: including the part that scoped it to Pennsylvania.

So, soldiers don't use them, except for those that do...

The same could be said for nuclear missiles: which you dismiss with no justification.

(BTW, soldiers do use them; their standard issue handgun is a Beretta 92 in 9mm.)

In 1780 it was? Not only is that germain to the ammendment, but you yourself cited "muskets" as a soldier weapon.

You now suddenly move to a completely different time in history? Dishonest.

No, the modern soldier carries the current iteration of the A2 M16 which is either semi-auto (one shot per trigger pull) or 3-round burst (3 shots per trigger pull)

Three round busts would make it automatic. But if you prefer (as you are happy to mention the "carried by some" baretta, feel free to consider the FN or M60 or any other of the fully automatic firearms a squad may deploy with.

The constitution does not address arms, the Bill of Rights does.

You apparently don't know what an ammendment is... it's an addition to the constitution. The bill of rights is a name for the first 10 ammendments to the US constitution.

Court cases have established that machine guns may be owned with a special license and grenades and claymore mines may not. "etc" has not been addressed yet.

I didn't ask what the court had decided. I am discussing the second ammendment directly. I've alreadky acknowledged that jurisprudence is not on my side.

The founders would be horrified at the idea that we can own guns but not defend ourselves with them. To assert otherwise is absurd!

So? What does that have to do with the second ammendment?

The founders would be horrified if we lacked freedom of religion. But that has nothing to do with the second ammendment either. Try to get back on topic please.

You're never going to be able to discuss this until you become more informed and take my position seriously by trying to understand it. Please go here:

Not about the second ammendment.

If you will not read it, I must assume you are not serious about engaging this issue.

You obviously are not, you won't stay on topic.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Don Cicchetti

But you argue to win points not to understand. Too bad, really.

At any rate, I am done discussing this with you.

I really need to add the "nanner-nanner I can't hear you" ploy to my FAQ to cover just these "toss insult then claim to leave" scenerios.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Don Cicchetti

Oh, I am not leaving, I'm simply learning who's who.

Splitting hairs there. You are abandoning answering for the many claims and statements you've made.

If you were actually *leaving*, I wouldn't have said anything at all. I don't feel a need for a "parting shot".

The fact that you don't think that the Bill of Rights is part of the consitution is staggering.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Don Cicchetti

Hmmm...

Well, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution specifically to restrict the power of the Federal government. That makes it both a part of, and something separate and even in tension with the Constitution. Hence, most people when referring to something therin will say " in the Bill of Rights" rather than "in the Constitution". No need to be staggered, it's really simple.

That's rationalizing. Many parts of the constitution have their own names.

It's a rationalizing I would accept if it had been in passing (I wouldn't call you on "either the constitution or the bill of rights" phrasing). But you plainly asserted that the bill of rights was not part of the constitution.

I will happily discuss any of these issues. First you must engage the things I have said, which begins by reading the documents I quoted and responding with some specificity, and without getting personal.

When I did you said I didn't read it right without ever explaining.

For example, when I quoted your cite "This law, however, is expressly recognized in the constitution of Pennsylvania." and pointed out that we were discussing the US constitution, not the constitution of Pennsylvania; you blithly asserted that the article was not about the constitution of Pennsylvania; without any citation.

Add to that, I'm not here to argue with some third-party website. Citations are terriffic ways to support arguments, but silly things to argue against. They are not here, and they are not you. If *you* have a case to make; then make it.

And even if I were inclined to follow some "further reading" suggestions, you have already made too make mischaracterizations of basic facts (bill of rights not in constitution, MSM not mentioning black panthers, etc) that it's simply not worth the investmet of time... there's no parity.