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.
They also agree on some infringment. You need an very cost prohibitive license for automatic weapons, background checks...Take it up with SCOTUS. They disagree and they hold more sway than you do. Next.
The USSC has not upheld either of these restrictions.They also agree on some infringment. You need an very cost prohibitive license for automatic weapons, background checks...
It's not my fault you are whining about the 2nd amendment. Let me know when you come to the realization that "what you think about the second amendment is irrelevant."
They haven't struck them down either.The USSC has not upheld either of these restrictions.
The right of the people.
Not the right of the state.
Not the right of the state militia .
Not the right of the people in the state militia.
The right of the people.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the constitutional protection for same, is not dependent on the well-regulated militia
The USSC discarded your argument 2 decades ago.
Get over it.
Just pointing out the irrelevancy of your claims.
You people get so emotional...
You claimed the court agrees on infringements.They haven't struck them down either.
I know numerous people who can legally own automatic weapons. It takes an FFL. People who have FFL's usually make their living in the firearms industry and they earn enough to justify the fees, so the cost is not prohibitive. As for background checks. If you purchase a weapon legally, you are required to submit to a background check. There have been 300 million of them performed by the NICS since 1998 and they have resulted in 3 million denials. Next.You need an very cost prohibitive license for automatic weapons, background checks...
usafacts.org
Except you're not. The right of people to bear arms was infringed by the same people who wrote the law. Slaves were people too. The precedent for selective notions on who these rights apply to is already baked into the history of all these laws.Just pointing out the irrelevancy of your claims.
Until they are struck down by the Court they are not recognized as infringments.You claimed the court agrees on infringements.
You listed two infringements as support for that claim.
You examples, no thaving been upheld by the USSC, do not support your claim.
In the post-Heller world, what "infringements" HAS the USSC upheld?
Irrelevant to your claim.Until they are struck down by the Court they are not recognized as infringments.
Certainly glad that you shithouse lawyers don't run the legal system in this country. The total amount of what you do not know about this subject would fill the ocean.Except you're not. The right of people to bear arms was infringed by the same people who wrote the law. Slaves were people too. The precedent for selective notions on who these rights apply to is already baked into the history of all these laws.
Nothing here changes the fact The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,Except you're not. The right of people to bear arms was infringed by the same people who wrote the law. Slaves were people too. The precedent for selective notions on who these rights apply to is already baked into the history of all these laws.
I don't have to argue according to your premise. I can argue on my own. I see background checks as a literal infringment as do others and its still legally going on. Until the Court strikes it down they defacto agree with it.Irrelevant to your claim.
You claimed the court agrees on infringements.
You listed two infringements as support for that claim.
You examples, not having been upheld by the USSC, do not support your claim.
Support your claim:
In the post-Heller world, what "infringements" has the USSC upheld?
YOU made a claimI don't have to argue according to your premise.
My point is that it isn't some sacred right, it has meant different things at different points in American history including as a tool for tyranny. The difference is the culture and the make up of the Court. We can and will make gun ownership extremely restrictive if not eliminated all together in another couple of generations because people under 30 don't have the sand affinity for firearms.Nothing here changes the fact The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,
Thus: "Well regulated militia" -- the term you intoduced as a response to "shall no tbe infringed" -- is irrelevant, as are your historical claims.
And I did qualify it. Im okay if you don't think so.YOU made a claim
YOU introduced a premise:
"They also agree on some infringment."
For the court to 'agree" the court must have issued a ruling to that effect
Support your claim:
In the post-Heller world, what "infringements" has the USSC upheld?
It is as "sacred" as any other right in the bill of rights.My point is that it isn't some sacred right....
Not going to happen.We can and will make gun ownership extremely restrictive if not eliminated all together in another couple of generations because people under 30 don't have the sand affinity for firearms.
Concession accepted.And I did qualify it. Im okay if you don't think so.
So not at all.It is as "sacred" as any other right in the bill of rights.
Not enough votes yet. Gun ownership and second amendment support falls off with the under 30 demographic.Not going to happen.
Not enough votes, and not enough people willing to die to confiscate guns.
I concede that you seem triggered.Concession accepted.
Are background checks required by law for licensed dealers? Yes or No?The answer to my question, BTW, is: None.
