2nd amendment: If the U.S. Constitution says one thing, and a court says another, which one should prevail? (state, support)
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.
The court joined the grand conspiracy. The collective of 2nd amendment supporters is not willing to assert that the second was so the people could bump off politicians if they got to uppity. So they made it about self defense with an actual acknowledgement that the right could be regulated.
So now you have a right to a firearm to defend yourself. But that right can be limited to a single shot small caliber shotgun if the government so decides. And that is clearly within the law.
The court joined the grand conspiracy. The collective of 2nd amendment supporters is not willing to assert that the second was so the people could bump off politicians if they got to uppity. So they made it about self defense with an actual acknowledgement that the right could be regulated.
So now you have a right to a firearm to defend yourself. But that right can be limited to a single shot small caliber shotgun if the government so decides. And that is clearly within the law.
I didn't sign the Constitution and no one else here did either. If you believe that human beings have natural rights, then there you go, you have the right to self defense. Whether the thug government who wishes only to plunder that which you produce thinks you have natural rights or not is irrelevant.
You can do no wrong if you do not use aggression to impose your will upon another. Don't worry about the thugs and tyrants is this so-called "society" of thugs and tyrants, they will always believe that they have a fictional right to impose their will upon you. All the more reason to be able to defend yourself.
The court joined the grand conspiracy. The collective of 2nd amendment supporters is not willing to assert that the second was so the people could bump off politicians if they got to uppity. So they made it about self defense with an actual acknowledgement that the right could be regulated.
So now you have a right to a firearm to defend yourself. But that right can be limited to a single shot small caliber shotgun if the government so decides. And that is clearly within the law.
You have a right to keep a handgun in your home without a trigger lock--that much is clear. Beyond that, we just don't know yet. It's likely that governments can restrict concealed arms.
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.
