Saturday, June 30, 2012


What are "arms" for the purpose of the Second Amendment?

After all, there is no modification for the term "arms" in the text.

Why would this include (or preclude) the possession of WMD by private citizens?


  1. Laci the Dog:

    You can't really expect the gunzloonz to read all, or any, of those sources. It would take time away from target practice and gunzbloggin'!

  2. I'm not entirely convinced all of these gunloonz/ gun zombies CAN read. There is such a fine line between can't and don't.

    They clearly cannot think critically, and their research skills are beow that of a typical kindergartner.

    The biggest problem with someone like Laci or I trying to engage these gunloonz is that they have erroneous foundational premises, and they can't get beyond those to participate in a rational and nuanced discussion.

    Ok, that and they have just plaint fucts instead of facts to go on.

    But what even seems reasonable to them is badly flawed. The discussion about the facts of Switzerland in WW II made that glaringly obvious.

    That is the real gap preventing any substantive meeting of the minds. Their gunz are shriveling their brains, and given the premise they offer for their need for guns, it is possibly shrivelling their testicles as well.

    Wow! guns in some ways equate to steroids!!!!!