Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
OP starts thread on 2nd Amendment but doesn't even understand it!
Typical "low information" Liberal/Socialist/Communist.
its conservatives not understanding it thats the problem, nowhere does it say people can have guns, never.
it gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia", not to people, not to individuals or home or business owners, that was to legislate for the raising of a police force. lawyers argued that you or your house or your family could be considered a militia, which is why you have guns now, but that was never the intention and its not even what the constitution says.
LOL...poor widdle liberal..never heard of "The Minutemen" have ya!
too funny.....
You DO know why they were called "Minutemen", don't you?
It's because they could fire a musket, reload, and fire it again within a minute.
I don't think the Founding Fathers were thinking about weapons that could fire 60-300 rounds per minute.
Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
3536 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.
it gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia", not to people, not to individuals or home or business owners, that was to legislate for the raising of a police force. lawyers argued that you or your house or your family could be considered a militia, which is why you have guns now, but that was never the intention and its not even what the constitution says.
The militia is comprised of private citizens, not the army...That's why there are two separate words to describe and discern between them.so what, the army is composed of private citizens, so can people have a tank if they want too ? idiot
You really suck at the English language, dontcha?
Why not personal nuclear weapons? What's having a mere gun going to do against the power of the state?
it gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia", not to people, not to individuals or home or business owners, that was to legislate for the raising of a police force. lawyers argued that you or your house or your family could be considered a militia, which is why you have guns now, but that was never the intention and its not even what the constitution says.
you know that.
i know that.
normal people know that.
scalia decided otherwise in heller... so until that is modified in some way, it is what it is...
the right to bear arms was never the right to wield military assault rifles that didnt exist when the constitution was written anyway, its crazy
