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.
One thing for sure, it does not say, Militia is illegal as the police state has suppressed the free state.
Start training with your buddies in tactical domestic warfare and let ATF/FBI catch wind of that! You're going to jail and your arms confiscated.
Another thing for sure, it does not say, the privilege of citizens 21 years or older who are non-felons and mentally sane.
You now have to ask government for the privilege to purchase and especially to keep on your person. They have placed an age limit, where none exist. I bought my first store bought rifle a 30-30 at 9. George Washington and all the founding fathers were felons to the kings crown. The mentally ill were culled from society quickly. By gun, hanging or incarceration.
Another thing for sure it does not say is, may keep but not bear the small arms the government allows.
We the people of the world that come to or born in the USA may keep where ever the hell we want, even on our person, and bear when threatened, the arms you personally feel efficient in its use and maintenance. You meet you threat with more than double the firepower met.
Another thing for sure it does not say is, can be altered at anytime emotions run high or government feels threatened.
It says shall not be infringed... for a reason. Not even an attempt to change or remove it would be unconstitutional and a call to arms(Remembering Concord and Lexington. They came for the guns and we killed them)
Completely invalid argument. They didn't anticipate the internet, either. Does that make First Amendment Rights expressed via the internet void? No, it does not.
Not in trhe least invalid. Four lower courts have already ruled that assault-style weapons aren't protected under 2A. Once there is a concrete definition of "assault-style weapon" rather than a moving target we will be ready for a SCOTUS case as to whether they will be permitted or not.
Not in trhe least invalid. Four lower courts have already ruled that assault-style weapons aren't protected under 2A.
That's an infringement, and therefore... unConstitutional. That's why we need more Consrtitutionalist Justices on SCOTUS. RBG looks like she won't hold up much longer. She's been falling asleep in Court when she's supposed to be hearing cases for more than 10 years.
Quote:
Once there is a concrete definition of "assault-style weapon" rather than a moving target we will be ready for a SCOTUS case as to whether they will be permitted or not.
Doesn't matter what the definition is. Any infringement is unConstitutional. You'd have to ratify another Amendment to repeal the 2nd, and I doubt that could ever be done.
The 2nd amendment says that since an armed, disciplined population is necessary for security in a free country, the right of normal people to KBA cannot be restricted.
This is clearly a flat ban on any govt in the country making any law restricting our ability to purchase, own, and carry a gun. Yet a number of governments (Federal, State, local) have made laws restricting exactly those things.
What should we obey? The 2nd amendment? Or the government officials making the "gun control" laws?
The Constitution was written in terms and language understandable by the ordinary (non-lawyer/scholar) of the time. No need whatsoever for any Court to "Interpret" the plain and clear meaning of the language. Also, the record of the proceeding, speeches and debates of the time clearly support that plain and clear meaning. Further, the language of the 2nd Amendment was incorporated into a broader document entitled The Bill of Rights, whose sole purpose was to protect important rights of the people from government violation.
That's an infringement, and therefore... unConstitutional. That's why we need more Consrtitutionalist Justices on SCOTUS. RBG looks like she won't hold up much longer. She's been falling asleep in Court when she's supposed to be hearing cases for more than 10 years.
Doesn't matter what the definition is. Any infringement is unConstitutional. You'd have to ratify another Amendment to repeal the 2nd, and I doubt that could ever be done.
The USSC does not agree...
.******************************
*The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,†according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,†(5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,†and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas
*******************************
And this is clearly the view of a conservative majority.
That's why it's important to seat Constitutionalist Justices on SCOTUS. The lame propensity to "legislate from the bench," which SCOTUS isn't even authorized to do, can NOT stand. SCOTUS is NOT a super-legislature.
Note that conservatives are not necessarily Constitutionalists. The two are not necessarily one and the same.
That's why it's important to seat Constitutionalist Justices on SCOTUS. The lame propensity to "legislate from the bench," which SCOTUS isn't even authorized to do, can NOT stand. SCOTUS is NOT a super-legislature.
Note that conservatives are not necessarily Constitutionalists. The two are not necessarily one and the same.
And that is the most constitutionalist court we are likely to see in our lives...
If you ever got a USSC court to rule that the 2nd was as intended the 2nd would be gone in a decade.
And that is the most constitutionalist court we are likely to see in our lives...
Nope. We'll get another Constitutionalist when RBG goes. It won't be long. She's been falling asleep in Court for at least 10 years already when she was supposed to be hearing cases, instead. How is that NOT a dereliction of duty?
Nope. We'll get another Constitutionalist when RBG goes. It won't be long. She's been falling asleep in Court for at least 10 years already when she was supposed to be hearing cases, instead.
Would make no difference on the 2nd. This court has already spoken.
And that is the most constitutionalist court we are likely to see in our lives...
If you ever got a USSC court to rule that the 2nd was as intended the 2nd would be gone in a decade.
Shall not be infringed means exactly that. Even an amendment would be an infringement and the entire intent behind Concord, Lexington and for Texas... Gonzales.
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.
They didn't anticipate the internet, either. Does that make First Amendment Rights expressed via the internet void? No, it does not. 
