Supreme Ct Says All Individuals Have Right To Bear Arms

[JackOfNoTrades]

How about the right to arm bears?
And the point of going over already ruled upon law?
You afraid somebody's coming for your guns.....again?

Xi's man has vowed to disarm the peasants as the Chinese Communist Party explains here;

Biden's gun control plan would impose strict regulations on owners of assault-style rifles - CNN Politics

Joe Biden is proposing to force owners of assault-style rifles to either sell their firearms through a voluntary buyback program or register them with the federal government under the same law that was first used to strictly control sales of machine guns in the wake of the gangland shootings of...

www.cnn.com

But it's interesting to note that as Quid Pro wants to leave the proles defenseless;

American gun sales soar to staggering record high in 2020

Pass the ammo. While 2020 has been a bummer year for millions of Americans, one significant winner has been firearms. Still about 60 days until year’s end, U.S. gun sales have hit an all-time…

www.nydailynews.com

So the Maoist thugs who are behind corrupt old Bai-Degn are facing down more Americans than ever.

Quid Pro still plans to have the Furry as his czar of disarming the populace if he gets the steal, right?

Joe Biden promises to put Beto O’Rourke in charge of gun control

Moments after former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke — who promised in a September debate to take away legally purchased assault rifles if elected — endorsed Joe Biden’s…

nypost.com

Hey, a man who dresses up like a squirrel to get buttfucked is eminently qualified to tell Americans to disarm.

View attachment 418323

No one has said anything of the sort. Sensible gun control measures do not involve confiscation. But please, fear monger away.

 

[Gdjjr]

Sensible gun control measures do not involve confiscation

Define sensible- then, show us the caveat in the words that you believe says that-

 

[progressive hunter]

How about the right to arm bears?
And the point of going over already ruled upon law?
You afraid somebody's coming for your guns.....again?

are you saying they arent???

 

[progressive hunter]

There are NO caveats in the 2nd amendment- it doesn't require interpretation- unless simple English isn't comprehended- the declarative is; shall NOT be infringed- period.

That's your interpretation, but judges and lawyers don't agree. The court's job is to interpret the law and they do it all the time.

saying the 2nd A can be interpreted is like saying cold blooded murder can be interpreted,,,

 

[Dick Foster]

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment

The second amendment is one single two part sentence written in clear, concise and certain language so needs no interpretation. It states the law and also explains why it exists. It along with the supremacy clause renders all gun laws at any level within these United States un constitutional, un enforceable and illegal. There's a beginning and end to it. It's just that simple.

No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.

Bullshit! The second amendment was penned with the events of Lexington and Concord fresh in the minds of the founders. Cannon and shot were involved in that incident which were the weapons of mass destruction of the day. The founders chose their words wisely using the word "arms" and not guns to purposely keep the 2nd both broad and lasting in its meaning so it would stay up to date and current.
You're simply full of shit and know nothing of our history. You would do well to keep your mouth shut in future so as not to display your ignorance and limited IQ so broadly. You can't hide your short comings by parroting other idiots, you only reinforce them.

 

[Viktor]

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment

The second amendment is one single two part sentence written in clear, concise and certain language so needs no interpretation. It states the law and also explains why it exists. It along with the supremacy clause renders all gun laws at any level within these United States un constitutional, un enforceable and illegal. There's a beginning and end to it. It's just that simple.

No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.

Bullshit! The second amendment was penned with the events of Lexington and Concord fresh in the minds of the founders. Cannon and shot were involved in that incident which were the weapons of mass destruction of the day. The founders chose their words wisely using the word "arms" and not guns to purposely keep the 2nd both broad and lasting in its meaning so it would stay up to date and current.
You're simply full of shit and know nothing of our history. You would do well to keep your mouth shut in future so as not to display your ignorance and limited IQ so broadly. You can't hide your short comings by parroting other idiots, you only reinforce them.

i WON'T shut my mouth. Are you tough enough to shut it for me, punk?:

 

[Viktor]

he court's job is to interpret the law and they do it all the time.

Can you show me that in the rules? The courts job is to apply law- to interpret requires rewriting- making a fine a tax, etc-

You need remedial english. interpret is not rewriting.YOU ARE STUPID

 

[Viktor]

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment

The second amendment is one single two part sentence written in clear, concise and certain language so needs no interpretation. It states the law and also explains why it exists. It along with the supremacy clause renders all gun laws at any level within these United States un constitutional, un enforceable and illegal. There's a beginning and end to it. It's just that simple.

No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.

Bullshit! The second amendment was penned with the events of Lexington and Concord fresh in the minds of the founders. Cannon and shot were involved in that incident which were the weapons of mass destruction of the day. The founders chose their words wisely using the word "arms" and not guns to purposely keep the 2nd both broad and lasting in its meaning so it would stay up to date and current.
You're simply full of shit and know nothing of our history. You would do well to keep your mouth shut in future so as not to display your ignorance and limited IQ so broadly. You can't hide your short comings by parroting other idiots, you only reinforce them.

ROTFL! Cannon in the 18th century were all single shot muzzleloaders. HAHAHAHA!

 

[progressive hunter]

he court's job is to interpret the law and they do it all the time.

Can you show me that in the rules? The courts job is to apply law- to interpret requires rewriting- making a fine a tax, etc-

You need remedial english. interpret is not rewriting.YOU ARE STUPID

the courts job is to interpret the law to see if it abides by the constitution,, the constitution is never interpreted because its written in simple english and clear to its intent,,
and thats more so with the 2nd A

 

[progressive hunter]

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment

The second amendment is one single two part sentence written in clear, concise and certain language so needs no interpretation. It states the law and also explains why it exists. It along with the supremacy clause renders all gun laws at any level within these United States un constitutional, un enforceable and illegal. There's a beginning and end to it. It's just that simple.

No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.

Bullshit! The second amendment was penned with the events of Lexington and Concord fresh in the minds of the founders. Cannon and shot were involved in that incident which were the weapons of mass destruction of the day. The founders chose their words wisely using the word "arms" and not guns to purposely keep the 2nd both broad and lasting in its meaning so it would stay up to date and current.
You're simply full of shit and know nothing of our history. You would do well to keep your mouth shut in future so as not to display your ignorance and limited IQ so broadly. You can't hide your short comings by parroting other idiots, you only reinforce them.

ROTFL! Cannon in the 18th century were all single shot muzzleloaders. HAHAHAHA!

the 2nd doesnt mention cannons,, it clearly states arms and under the intent it was for military arms

 

[Dick Foster]

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment

The second amendment is one single two part sentence written in clear, concise and certain language so needs no interpretation. It states the law and also explains why it exists. It along with the supremacy clause renders all gun laws at any level within these United States un constitutional, un enforceable and illegal. There's a beginning and end to it. It's just that simple.

No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.

Bullshit! The second amendment was penned with the events of Lexington and Concord fresh in the minds of the founders. Cannon and shot were involved in that incident which were the weapons of mass destruction of the day. The founders chose their words wisely using the word "arms" and not guns to purposely keep the 2nd both broad and lasting in its meaning so it would stay up to date and current.
You're simply full of shit and know nothing of our history. You would do well to keep your mouth shut in future so as not to display your ignorance and limited IQ so broadly. You can't hide your short comings by parroting other idiots, you only reinforce them.

i WON'T shut my mouth. Are you tough enough to shut it for me, punk?:

I would likely stomp a mud hole in your punk ass and then I'd turn around and walk it dry. You're not only stupid, you're a punk too.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

How about the right to arm bears?
And the point of going over already ruled upon law?
You afraid somebody's coming for your guns.....again?

Biden has promised it.

You calling your entire cult team LIARS ???

 

[Dick Foster]

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment

The second amendment is one single two part sentence written in clear, concise and certain language so needs no interpretation. It states the law and also explains why it exists. It along with the supremacy clause renders all gun laws at any level within these United States un constitutional, un enforceable and illegal. There's a beginning and end to it. It's just that simple.

No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.

Bullshit! The second amendment was penned with the events of Lexington and Concord fresh in the minds of the founders. Cannon and shot were involved in that incident which were the weapons of mass destruction of the day. The founders chose their words wisely using the word "arms" and not guns to purposely keep the 2nd both broad and lasting in its meaning so it would stay up to date and current.
You're simply full of shit and know nothing of our history. You would do well to keep your mouth shut in future so as not to display your ignorance and limited IQ so broadly. You can't hide your short comings by parroting other idiots, you only reinforce them.

ROTFL! Cannon in the 18th century were all single shot muzzleloaders. HAHAHAHA!

They were nonetheless the weapons of mass destruction of the day, stupid. If the founders had wanted to limit the scope of the second they were certainly smart enough and capable enough writers to have done so.
Why do are you working so hard to prove your stupidity? We accept that fact as abundanly clear now.

 

[Viktor]

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment

The second amendment is one single two part sentence written in clear, concise and certain language so needs no interpretation. It states the law and also explains why it exists. It along with the supremacy clause renders all gun laws at any level within these United States un constitutional, un enforceable and illegal. There's a beginning and end to it. It's just that simple.

No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.

Bullshit! The second amendment was penned with the events of Lexington and Concord fresh in the minds of the founders. Cannon and shot were involved in that incident which were the weapons of mass destruction of the day. The founders chose their words wisely using the word "arms" and not guns to purposely keep the 2nd both broad and lasting in its meaning so it would stay up to date and current.
You're simply full of shit and know nothing of our history. You would do well to keep your mouth shut in future so as not to display your ignorance and limited IQ so broadly. You can't hide your short comings by parroting other idiots, you only reinforce them.

i WON'T shut my mouth. Are you tough enough to shut it for me, punk?:

I would likely stomp a mud hole in your punk ass and then I'd turn around and walk it dry. You're not only stupid, you're a punk too.

WOW! I'm terrified!!!! How impressive!!!!YAK, YAK, YAK

 

[Gdjjr]

the courts job is to interpret the law to see if it abides by the constitution,,

No. The courts are to apply law- not interpret it- now, if you can show us, from the constitution, otherwise-

 

[Gdjjr]

You need remedial english. interpret is not rewriting.YOU ARE STUPID

I beg to differ- ask John Roberts- ya know, that Supreme that wears a black dress- a fine, is a tax instead- yeah, that guy in a black dress-

 

[progressive hunter]

the courts job is to interpret the law to see if it abides by the constitution,,

No. The courts are to apply law- not interpret it- now, if you can show us, from the constitution, otherwise-

I think its about the wording,,
there is no place for interpreting in constitutional matters at the SCOTUS,,

the constitution says what it does on simple english with the federalist paper for context when needed,,,

 

[Uncensored2008]

democrats are not constrained by laws or the Constitution.

FYI, Republican subscribe to the same borrow to spend policy, the same UNjust wars, (foreign and domestic) and worldwide hegemony- those 3 items direct ALL domestic policy, which, I don't believe the constitution says is an authority- but, hey, what do I know? Oh, simple English comprehension- my bad- I have no esoteric background to present as a credential making me an '*authority*-

Nice straw man.

You jumped in when a leftist vomited out the same cliched bullshit about the founding fathers not envisioning "machine guns" (as if a leftist knows what one is) and therefore the 2nd only applies to muskets. Which is as stupid as claiming that the 1st only applies to quill and parchment.

I understand your desire to distract from the subject, but I'm going to call you on your bullshit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No one has said anything of the sort. Sensible gun control measures do not involve confiscation. But please, fear monger away.

Lying when you've just been overwhelmed with cites just makes you look stupid, Comrade.

 

[Uncensored2008]

i WON'T shut my mouth. Are you tough enough to shut it for me, punk?:

Uh oh, we got an Internet Tough guy here, we all better be VERY AFRAID!