CDZ What The 2nd does NOT Say!

[yiostheoy]

It says, government has the right to register guns, license gun owners, require training

State governments do and always have for the most part; see Cramer's essays on 'The Racist Roots of Gun Control'. the issue is one the 'states' righters' always step all over their own arguments and pretend they didn't and their views are all perfectly compatible with each other. I'm personally just fine with firearm ownership; I'm fine with some sort of safety standards and screening restrictions, but that doesn't make me obligated to agree with stupid cognitively dissonant rubbish re original intent.

The anti-Negro freed slave roots of gun legislation is not relevant.

It is a historical fact but simply not relevant.

The relevant issue is that (1) Negroes have been freed from slavery, (2) Negroes are all over America now, (3) crime rates by Negroes are high everywhere, (4) when you outlaw guns only outlaws including Negro outlaws will have guns.

States like California and NYS which have de facto outlawed public possession of guns in public by their residents have made their residents easy meat for outlaw Negroes with guns everywhere.

Their state legislatures don't get it.

 

[Picaro]

Here is an avatar for you Picaro .

Click on this and save it to your hard drive files somewhere.

Then upload it here in the avatar editor:

View attachment 123059

lol no thanks. I have a pic of a brass1925 watch fob indian reverse swastika with 'Drink Coca Cola 5cent printed on it I used for a long time, but I can't find it since a migrated to a new PC and can't remember where I filed it. It would probably be banned anyway, by dorks and snowflakes crying and wetting themselves over it.

 

[yiostheoy]

Here is an avatar for you Picaro .

Click on this and save it to your hard drive files somewhere.

Then upload it here in the avatar editor:

View attachment 123059

lol no thanks. I have a pic of a brass1925 watch fob indian reverse swastika with 'Drink Coca Cola 5cent printed on it I used for a long time, but I can't find it since a migrated to a new PC and can't remember where I filed it. It would probably be banned anyway, by dorks and snowflakes crying and wetting themselves over it.

Ok so go with this then:

 

[yiostheoy]

It's obviously Indian and not Nazi.

Swastika - Wikipedia

 

[yiostheoy]

Whatever floats your boat.

The only thing that creeps me out is when males have female images for avatars and females have males.

That's creepy.

Saw it a lot on a personality website forum.

All the juvie boys liked sexy girls' photos for their avatars.

Fokking little faggots.

 

[2aguy]

I love this conversation.

Obviously our founding fathers knew they meant it to allow regular people to carry guns. It is how THEY enforced it.

But what do the words of the 2nd mean if you translate it as a whole, not halves?

Someone goofed there.

According to Scalia -- NOT "carry".

"Keep" in their homes.

Wrong......Bear as in carry....

 

[2aguy]

The Heller decision said you can make laws about concealed carry, made no prohibition on actually carrying guns......and even the comments on concealed carry are wrong.

 

[Picaro]

It's obviously Indian and not Nazi.

Swastika - Wikipedia

Wouldn't be any fun. the watch fob one drove the left wing tards absolutely nuts, lots of troll value.

1925 coca cola watch fob trinket - Bing images

On edit, found some here; haven't checked the size, the last one I had was pretty small and could be edited down to fit the specs for an avatar and still be readable.

This one has possibilities.

Don't know if the image is copyrighted or not, though. Didn't used to be a problem on the innernetz, but it is now.

 

[yiostheoy]

The Heller decision said you can make laws about concealed carry, made no prohibition on actually carrying guns......and even the comments on concealed carry are wrong.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Held:

1. 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, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

 

[yiostheoy]

The Heller decision said you can make laws about concealed carry, made no prohibition on actually carrying guns......and even the comments on concealed carry are wrong.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Apart from his challenge to the handgun ban and thetrigger-lock requirement respondent asked the DistrictCourt to enjoin petitioners from enforcing the separate licensing requirement "in such a manner as to forbid thecarrying of a firearm within one’s home or possessed land without a license." App. 59a. The Court of Appeals didnot invalidate the licensing requirement, but held only
that the District "may not prevent [a handgun] from being moved throughout one’s house." 478 F. 3d, at 400. It then ordered the District Court to enter summary judgment"consistent with [respondent’s] prayer for relief." Id


the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.


We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.


It is so ordered.

 

[yiostheoy]

This one has possibilities.

Don't know if the image is copyrighted or not, though. Didn't used to be a problem on the innernetz, but it is now.

No ... this looks too Nazi ... it would piss off a sh!tload of Jews ... then the mod's would be coerced to ban you.

 

[Picaro]

It says, government has the right to register guns, license gun owners, require training

State governments do and always have for the most part; see Cramer's essays on 'The Racist Roots of Gun Control'. the issue is one the 'states' righters' always step all over their own arguments and pretend they didn't and their views are all perfectly compatible with each other. I'm personally just fine with firearm ownership; I'm fine with some sort of safety standards and screening restrictions, but that doesn't make me obligated to agree with stupid cognitively dissonant rubbish re original intent.

The anti-Negro freed slave roots of gun legislation is not relevant.

It is a historical fact but simply not relevant.

The relevant issue is that (1) Negroes have been freed from slavery, (2) Negroes are all over America now, (3) crime rates by Negroes are high everywhere, (4) when you outlaw guns only outlaws including Negro outlaws will have guns.

States like California and NYS which have de facto outlawed public possession of guns in public by their residents have made their residents easy meat for outlaw Negroes with guns everywhere.

Their state legislatures don't get it.

It's relevant re all the selective narratives re appealing to the original intent of the 2nd. The main reason for the 2nd as far as Madison and the Federalists were concerned was to invent a way for the Feds and state to pay for the troops under the control of the state to put down activities like uppity rioting proles and Shay's Rebellion without having to hire private armies and pay them out of their own pockets. There was a major depression on and banks were seizing the assets and properties and tossing people in debtor's prisons all over the country and those lazy proles had the audacity to get all upset over the decisions of their betters.

 

[Picaro]

This one has possibilities.

Don't know if the image is copyrighted or not, though. Didn't used to be a problem on the innernetz, but it is now.

No ... this looks too Nazi ... it would piss off a sh!tload of Jews ... then the mod's would be coerced to ban you.

Actually that was never the case; I've always been pro-Israel and anti-racist, both left and right wing. I'm an equal opportunity annoyer. When you read the history of Coca Cola under the Nazi state you'll get why.

 

[yiostheoy]

This one has possibilities.

Don't know if the image is copyrighted or not, though. Didn't used to be a problem on the innernetz, but it is now.

No ... this looks too Nazi ... it would piss off a sh!tload of Jews ... then the mod's would be coerced to ban you.

Actually that was never the case; I've always been pro-Israel and anti-racist, both left and right wing. I'm an equal opportunity annoyer.

If you want Jews to love you then wear a 7 or 9 tipped menorah.

 

[yiostheoy]

As for me and my house, we will love the Catholic Pope.

 

[Picaro]

This one has possibilities.

Don't know if the image is copyrighted or not, though. Didn't used to be a problem on the innernetz, but it is now.

No ... this looks too Nazi ... it would piss off a sh!tload of Jews ... then the mod's would be coerced to ban you.

Actually that was never the case; I've always been pro-Israel and anti-racist, both left and right wing. I'm an equal opportunity annoyer.

If you want Jews to love you then wear a 7 or 9 tipped menorah.

Don't care one way or the other whether they love me or not. They have most of the right enemies, as do Xians, so they must doing something right.

 

[yiostheoy]

Fanatical religions of any kind scare me.

Catholicism was once fanatical too but that was centuries ago.

 

[2aguy]

The Heller decision said you can make laws about concealed carry, made no prohibition on actually carrying guns......and even the comments on concealed carry are wrong.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Apart from his challenge to the handgun ban and thetrigger-lock requirement respondent asked the DistrictCourt to enjoin petitioners from enforcing the separate licensing requirement "in such a manner as to forbid thecarrying of a firearm within one’s home or possessed land without a license." App. 59a. The Court of Appeals didnot invalidate the licensing requirement, but held only
that the District "may not prevent [a handgun] from being moved throughout one’s house." 478 F. 3d, at 400. It then ordered the District Court to enter summary judgment"consistent with [respondent’s] prayer for relief." Id


the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.


We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.


It is so ordered.

You have to read the whole opinion....and how they got to their decisions.....The legal rulings they cite in Heller.....

From Heller....where the refer to the right to carry a weapon for self defense....


p.38

In the famous fugitive-slave case of Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 850, 852 (CC Pa. 1833), Baldwin, sitting as a circuit judge, cited both the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania analogue for his conclusion that a citizen has “a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person, and to use them, if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence as made it necessary for the protection or safety of either.”
-----------

P.39

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
-------

p.40

Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”