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.
It is plural with no absolute. Why add more wording the 2nd Amendment than has already been added without amendment.
Congress can make no unconstitutional law. The 1934 Firearms Act is unconstitutional.
The law stating you must be 21 to purchase a firearm is unconstitutional
The law stating felons are not permitted to buy or own a firearm, is unconstitutional.
The law stating the mentally ill walking freely in society, cannot buy or own a firearm, is unconstitutional.
Conceal and open carry laws are unconstitutional.
At what point is a person, not a person? I'll tell you. When one is in bondage, incarcerated or dead.
Other than that, the RIGHT(rights are individual rights, not collective) of the people to keep(where ever the individual wants) & bear(carry at all times), shall not be infringed.
Your rights and my rights, as a sovereign individual, do not come from Congress, 9 people in robes, or any other person.
The text of the Bill of Rights was so simple, everyone could understand it. No words or definitions needed. The text defined it as much as they wanted it to be defined.
All the openness is called individual liberty, for the people to choose for themselves, individually.
Simple. Those rights need to change to adapt with the country. Thankfully, that's why there are amendments.
Are you also okay with freedom of speech being limited to two instances? Or habeas corpus only applying to your first two arrests? Perhaps the limits on search and seizure should end with the third visit by law enforcement to your residence?
So your defense is to throw a dart at other unrelated things that don't cause death. Right? Because that's what a gun is. A machine designed to cause the death of another life form. Yes, you can target practice.... but the primary invention was created for death. There's no point in owning a gun unless you plan on taking the life of another being (human, animal, etc) or to practice on paper images of other life forms.
Edit: No - I'm not against target practice and completely realize that shooting is a recreational and olympic sport. I have no issues with that. I'm saying that the weapon was not invented with those cases in mind.
Simple. Those rights need to change to adapt with the country. Thankfully, that's why there are amendments.
Glad you don't think for me, with "shall not be infringed" determining you or anyone else, never will.
Shall not infringe, means an amendment would infringe on that basic right.
So your defense is to throw a dart at other unrelated things that don't cause death. Right? Because that's what a gun is. A machine designed to cause the death of another life form. Yes, you can target practice.... but the primary invention was created for death. There's no point in owning a gun unless you plan on taking the life of another being (human, animal, etc) or to practice on paper images of other life forms.
Edit: No - I'm not against target practice and completely realize that shooting is a recreational and olympic sport. I have no issues with that. I'm saying that the weapon was not invented with those cases in mind.
They are all rights that do not come from any person. Oppress someone and you may very well die for your actions, so you do not ever oppress anyone else.
The sacrifice of one, for the freedom and liberty of many to follow.
Patriotism.
Glad you don't think for me, with "shall not be infringed" determining you or anyone else, never will.
Shall not infringe, means an amendment would infringe on that basic right.
That's the point. Laws (sorry, rights) can change. There's already a process for it and prior artwork (21st amendment). I'm not talking a full repel. I'm talking about modification of it to provide further clarity. A full repeal would never get through, but modification has a chance.
The Second Amendment was clearly intended to ensure that men could be called up suddenly to defend the country - since there was no standing army - so presumably they would be entitled to as much weaponry that one man could comfortably carry on his own. I suppose that originally that meant carrying a couple of muskets, although now it would translate a little differently.
Wait, you're telling me that things in 1776 were different than they are now? Tell me it isn't so!
One wonders how the founding fathers would have felt about what transpired in Las Vegas. I predict it would have made them sick to their stomachs.
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.