Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
I want to address this a little more. Tell me where you disagree.The 2nd A.: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” NO WHERE IN THIS SENTENCE IS THE PHRASE,
"These people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, having it removed thorough due process.
Thus, banning their possession and use of firearms does not violate the 2nd."
So, I'm not a dumbass, and my comment you use in your signature line is accurate, i.e. your personal attack on me: "Let me dumb this down for you..." is your safe harbor. Why not be honest for once in your life and admit that gun control can or cannot be an infringement, depending on circumstances.
Due process, which you admit is legal way in which someone has been found to be mentally ill and/or a felon, is a finding which can only be decided by an investigation. Thus, Background Checks may not be sufficient but are necessary to determine who can possess a weapon/arm.
Try to spin your way out of that.
1. Any weapon or equipment reasonably related to service in a militia is protected by the 2nd Amendment (See U.S. v. Miller).
2. Such protection is applied to the States via the 14th Amendment . (See Heller; See also McDonald v. City of Chicago)
3. Any law (state, local, or federal) that preemptively restricts an individual's right to keep and bear arms that are reasonably related to service in a militia is facially unconstitutional.
Tell me what is wrong with any of these statements and why they are wrong (if any).
.