Bulletbob
Gold Member
Felons should not be allowed to own a gun there's a reason for that you know.Unconstitutionally- makes you happy, correct?Many Americans are not allowed to bear arms
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.
Felons should not be allowed to own a gun there's a reason for that you know.Unconstitutionally- makes you happy, correct?Many Americans are not allowed to bear arms
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-he court's job is to interpret the law and they do it all the time.
According to your opinion- does shall not be infringed mean anything to you? Can you show in the words of the 2nd amendment the caveat of "except felons"? There's a thing called a dictionary, for a "reason".Felons should not be allowed to own a gun there's a reason for that you know.
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?
The thing the stupid leftists don't understand is that the average response time when you call the police is more than 25 minutes. The bad guy will be gone by then.
Old news
That's a lie..but you know that...LOL!Old news
Xi's man promises to end the 2nd and piss all over precedent like Heller.
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.
That's a lie..but you know that...LOL!
It states what the gov't can and can't do, legally- the BoR are lines the gov't is not supposed to cross- there is one caveat, in the 4th amendment- "just cause", which is, ambiguous and has been used (especially since 9/11) nefariously to *assume* an authority on the pretext of National Security- and nary a "gov't official" complains-It states the law
Oh bullshitBy the same token, the only speech protected is that written with a quill on parchment by candle light.
Stupid argument is stupid.
Biden CAN'T rewrite the laws, moron- not legally, idiot.Well someone is lying - but it's the one who always lies - you...
It states what the gov't can and can't do, legally- the BoR are lines the gov't is not supposed to cross- there is one caveat, in the 4th amendment- "just cause", which is, ambiguous and has been used (especially since 9/11) nefariously to *assume* an authority on the pretext of National Security- and nary a "gov't official" complains-It states the law
Fed gov't actions restricting liberty is illegal, by definition, but, since ambiguity is what lawyers live by and thrive on, it is what we have- mostly an esoteric interpretation of whatever fits/suits an agenda to "lead" dummies into misinformation being accurate- it seems, Public Education (which is also illegal and nefarious) has convinced millions that words mean what an authority deems them to mean at a time convenient to suit/fit an agenda-
Esoteric interpretaion fails to recognize that without definition interpretation doesn't exist- yet, authoritative "lawyers" and gov't "officials" ignore the facts because it doesn't suit/fit their agenda of absolute authority-
Oh bullshitBy the same token, the only speech protected is that written with a quill on parchment by candle light.
Stupid argument is stupid.
Of course, they had no way of knowing about the internet and debate boards where people could write things. The 1st amendment still applies, just like the 2nd.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.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.
Biden CAN'T rewrite the laws, moron- not legally, idiot.Well someone is lying - but it's the one who always lies - you...
Whoever can argue til the cows get home- it's campaign rhetoric to keep dummy citizens divided-I think Xi's man is arguing that the desire of the Communist party to impose tyranny is just cause to crush all civil rights.
Of course, they had no way of knowing about the internet and debate boards where people could write things. The 1st amendment still applies, just like the 2nd.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.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.
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*-democrats are not constrained by laws or the Constitution.
What do you mean frozen? Of course they didn't- they offered a way to "progress" legally- force was not it, thus a 2nd amendment-The founding fathers did not expect progress to be frozen.