Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right. And as an assurance that the stated end will be achieved, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You've got two freakin pages of citations backing this up.
What is wrong with you?
I want to make d___d sure gun fondlers are aware that the subject word of the Second Amendment is MILITIA, and nowhere in the Amendment is the word individual found.
Sarachiwhaawhaa....why do you continue to build straw men and ignore facts?
Supreme Court ruling that the Second Ammendment applies to individuals isn't good enough for you? You need proof? What more do you need? ...and you call US idiots...pffft
Many court cases determining that cops aren't responsible for your protection isn't good enough either?
So if you are going to dismiss case law...tell me, how can there ever be any acceptable proof good enough for you?.....
There can't because facts don't fit well into your fantasy land...
I'm curious as to how you will react when some criminal collapses your little fantasy land around you....whom will you blame?
Certainly not yourself...
Sure, and unlike the Constitution, the Supremes routinely modify or reverse themselves by ruling accordingly on new cases. The Supremes are wrong, have been wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future. In this case, they completely ignored the fact that the framers wrote the Second Amendment about the MILITIA, because I suppose they felt it would be a nice thing to give ignoramus gun fondlers what they were asking for. BUT the Second Amendment is about MILITIAS, the subject word of the thing is about MILITIAS, and that's the way the framers wanted it. If they'd wanted to say that individuals were allowed to own guns without being in a REGULATED MILITIA, you'd betcha they'd have said it. But that's not what they wanted to say, so they didn't.
I want to make d___d sure gun fondlers are aware that the subject word of the Second Amendment is MILITIA, and nowhere in the Amendment is the word individual found.
You've beat that point to death in this and multiple other threads dedicated to the same subject. The horse is dead. We heard you the first time. And the twenty first time.
You've beat that point to death in this and multiple other threads dedicated to the same subject. The horse is dead. We heard you the first time. And the twenty first time.
You might have, but there are others assuring me that the Second Amendment is about individual gun ownership and has nothing to do with the regulated militias. I'll beat it to death all over again if necessary.
You might have, but there are others assuring me that the Second Amendment is about individual gun ownership and has nothing to do with the regulated militias. I'll beat it to death all over again if necessary.
You might have, but there are others assuring me that the Second Amendment is about individual gun ownership and has nothing to do with the regulated militias. I'll beat it to death all over again if necessary.
I'm sure that you will.
And I didn't say that I agreed with you. Just that I had heard you.
You remind me of a little girl saying, "IT'S MINE BECAUSE I SAID SO!"
That would depend if the supreme court agreed with her.
If the intent was for the militia and only the militia to be armed, I would think it would be written as such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua
I want to make d___d sure gun fondlers are aware that the subject word of the Second Amendment is MILITIA, and nowhere in the Amendment is the word individual found.
By the way I was addressing your uninformed statements regarding law enforcement when I referred to those citations. What happened to that?
I want to make d___d sure gun fondlers are aware that the subject word of the Second Amendment is MILITIA, and nowhere in the Amendment is the word individual found.
Supreme Court already ruled that 2nd amendment does indeed apply to individuals and that militias are not required.
Though anyone with an 8th grade reading level would pick that up by merely reading the amendment.
That would depend if the supreme court agreed with her.
If the intent was for the militia and only the militia to be armed, I would think it would be written as such.
And it is written that way.
And unlike the Constitution, the Supremes routinely modify or reverse themselves by ruling accordingly on new cases. The Supremes are wrong, have been wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future. In this case, they completely ignored the fact that the framers wrote the Second Amendment about the MILITIA, because I suppose they felt it would be a nice thing to give ignoramus gun fondlers what they were asking for. BUT the Second Amendment is about MILITIAS, the subject word of the thing is about MILITIAS, and that's the way the framers wanted it. If they'd wanted to say that individuals were allowed to own guns without being in a REGULATED MILITIA, you'd betcha they'd have said it. But that's not what they wanted to say, so they didn't.
Quote:
By the way I was addressing your uninformed statements regarding law enforcement when I referred to those citations. What happened to that?
My statements are always informed. However, what citations are you talking about?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
