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.
If a woman tells a man, no, I shall not be infringed tonight. Does the man think she is kidding and take what he wants, infringing upon her anyway?
"Hark, Suitor! Thou shalt not infringe me, or yea and verily I wilt have my manservant hie thee to yon pillory, and grievous recompense thou shalt make."
Yes it is.. In 1787 it was perfectly legal to own a cannon, a multitude of different types of firearms. In 1787 you could have any firearm the military had available to them. Today you can't and there is no logical reason. The 2nd amendment was not written so hunters could hunt, or to protect settlers from "Indians". It was written as a means of giving the people to overthrow the government if need be. Today civilian arms are like taking a BB gun to the OK corral. The American people still need to have the "ability" to overthrow the government in order to keep our rights in check from politicians of dubious character. Today more than any time in history our government is taking away our abilities to defend ourselves against them.
You know you're right, why aren't the people allowed to have nukes? I demand my right to bombs like the military has because we were allowed cannons once.
You know you're right, why aren't the people allowed to have nukes? I demand my right to bombs like the military has because we were allowed cannons once.
You know you're right, why aren't the people allowed to have nukes? I demand my right to bombs like the military has because we were allowed cannons once.
Arms are not specified in the 2nd amendment.
Meaning, we use what ever it takes to suppress oppressive tyranny.
Actually, no place in the constitution does the document grant authority to the SCOTUS to decide constitutionality. That power was grabbed by the SCOTUS in Marbury v Madison.
.
But it's not like every law that gets passed by Congress goes first to the SCOTUS to be judged constitutional. This only happens if an individual case makes it to the Supreme Court. Because what does a court do? It determines whether someone violated the law. If there seems to be a contradiction between laws, they have to defer to the highest law, the Constitution.
But it's not like every law that gets passed by Congress goes first to the SCOTUS to be judged constitutional. This only happens if an individual case makes it to the Supreme Court. Because what does a court do? It determines whether someone violated the law. If there seems to be a contradiction between laws, they have to defer to the highest law, the Constitution.
No law get reviewed by the SC, before passing
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.
