Rigby5
Diamond Member
In fact, all the cannons used by the Continental Army, were privately owned.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the states were also denied,,The actual only possible interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that the first federal gun control law in 1927, and all federal firearm laws that followed, are simply illegal.
The federal government was clearly denied any firearm jurisdiction at all.
Bogus. I doubt he said this. He most certainly wasn't a "conservative". Bogus.
the states were also denied,,
you never did answer if states could do the same with other amendments like the 5th A and jail or execute people without due process,,The federal Constitution and Bill of Rights would not have had the authority or jurisdiction to deny all state jurisdiction over firearms.
For example, what if states wanted to pass legislation preventing juveniles from being armed in public, making it illegal to carry a firearm in public that was loaded and cocked, or basic gun safety like that?
Nope. He's correct. Study it.
you never did answer if states could do the same with other amendments like the 5th A and jail or execute people without due process,,
you just keep making up crazy shit like this,,
youre dodging a direct question,,,Of course states could and did often violate the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
For example, slavery.
I watched more video of Warren Burger saying the 2nd amendment is a fraud that should never have been in the Bill of Rights.
I am paraphrasing, but he said why shouldn't firearms be regulated, like for juveniles, the way we regulate cars now?
And the reason that really made Warren Burger sound ignorant is that he clearly misunderstood the use and meaning of the word "regulated", in the 2nd amendment.
A "well regulated militia" is not one that is carefully constricted by laws, but one that is well functioning, practiced, reliable, etc., as in a "well regulated clock".
Sorry, but Warren Burger in this interview, came off like a very ignorant person.
The founders clearly did not trust a mercenary military, wanted citizen soldiers instead, and wanted to ensure that the general population would not only be armed, but well practiced and ready to fight whenever it became necessary.
In no way did the Founders want only state militias to be armed. The Founders are on record saying they were considering making firearm ownership mandatory, so that everyone would be well practiced in the use of weapon when necessary.
Burger's modern and reverse interpretation of the word "regulated" makes we wonder if he ever read anything at all about Constitutional law?
youre dodging a direct question,,,
I can only guess you know youre wrong but cant admit it,,,
youre still dodging the question,,,The Bill of Rights was specifically added to induce states to be more likely to sign on, by restricting the federal government.
Adding restriction on the states would not have helped accomplish that at all.
So there was no incentive for the Founders to add anything to protect individual rights.
you know good and well the well regulated militia part has nothing to do with the right to keep and bare arms since its specifically says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,
Everything in the bill of rights is an individual right. How do you come up with this stuff?The Bill of Rights was specifically added to induce states to be more likely to sign on, by restricting the federal government.
Adding restriction on the states would not have helped accomplish that at all.
So there was no incentive for the Founders to add anything to protect individual rights.
youre still dodging the question,,,
its a simple yes or no
can a state change/ignore the 5th A and jail or execute without due process??
or any other amendment??
but you said the states can interfere with it??The "well regulated militia" part does have something to do with "shall not be infringed".
To me, it clearly is saying that, "Because we need citizens soldiers good with arms, that the right of citizens to be well armed must not be interfered with."
From a purely legalistic basis they may have wanted no federal jurisdiction over firearms, but they clearly were also giving the pragmatic argument that there is a NEED for a well armed citizenry.
Everything in the bill of rights is an individual right. How do you come up with this stuff?
so that means they have no power over the 2nd A either,,,Yes state could and did, but no longer can, due to the 14th amendment.
my god youre an idiot,,,Nope, the intent of the Bill of Rights was all for the states.
For example:
{... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[4] ...}
That is totally restrictions on the federal government, and not anything about restriction on states.
There were several states at the time, Pennsylvania and Connecticut, that did have established state religions.
Listen up, stupid leftie.I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...
but you said the states can interfere with it??
whats the difference between feds and states?? thay are both government,,,