Why does the 2nd amendment exist?

[conserveguy877]

 

[JimBowie1958]

Perhaps our republicans can tell us why cannons which WERE available were not put in the 2nd?

Because canon are not bearable arms, dickhead.

 

[MarkDuffy]

trump will be overthrown before that happens. A Democrat will save us.

Well you tried to assassinate the entire GOP Congress.

I guess that was the warm up.

You clowns could barely scrape up a team.

View attachment 152619

Congressional Baseball Game - Wikipedia

LOSERS

Yes, the other team usually wins when they shoot the opposing players

Well played.

Anti-Gun Democrats is a republican myth

Right, they just don't want the average American to have them

Is that an automatic weapon he is firing?

I just love that grin. He must be at another GOP baseball game.

Right, they just don't want the average American to have them

Man, the opioid crisis is striking deep into the red states.

You need to lower the dose and it might help reduce the hallucinations

 

[MarkDuffy]

Besides, we only winged Scalise

He lived

We are the compassionate party

 

[MarkDuffy]

Perhaps our republicans can tell us why cannons which WERE available were not put in the 2nd?

Because canon are not bearable arms, dickhead.

Too early to accept your surrender.

Exactly my point. You only get to have single shot muskets.

 

[Flash]

The Supreme Court has already decided that the government can limit what kinds of weapons private citizens can own without special permits. Time to extend that to the types of guns that Paddock used.

However, Moon Bat, the person that wrote that made that statement is not around to explain what the limits are.

We do have an opinion by the Court in the Miller case where they stated that the Second applied to weapons in use by the military.

If the filthy ass government has the right to take away semi auto weapons then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it is written on.

If the filthy ass government has the right to make a person get permission through a background check then the Bill of Rights stating that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it is written on.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Exactly my point. You only get to have single shot muskets.

Mr Doofy, the Constitution is a living breathing document that updates itself via case law to include automatic rifles for American citizen soldiers.

roflmao

 

[Flash]

Perhaps our republicans can tell us why cannons which WERE available were not put in the 2nd?

Because canon are not bearable arms, dickhead.

Because the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed the crime should never be possession of the firearm, only using it for criminal intent.

 

[Flash]

Exactly my point. You only get to have single shot muskets.

Mr Doofy, the Constitution is a living breathing document that updates itself via case law to include automatic rifles for American citizen soldiers.

roflmao

According to these Moon Bats the right of free speech doesn't apply to TV, radio or the Internet. Only hand printed newspapers or flyers.

 

[DJT for Life]

The Second Amendment (1791) protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that this right applies to individuals, not merely to collective militias, it has also held that the government may regulate or place some limits on the manufacture, ownership and sale of firearms or other weapons. Requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates, the amendment reflected the lingering resentment over the widespread efforts of the British to confiscate the colonists' firearms at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Patrick Henry had rhetorically asked, shall we be stronger, "when we are totally disarmed, and when a British Guard shall be stationed in every house?"
.
.
.
.
it's so liberal to not see the big picture.

They are emotional and hand wringers....fuck facts.

But the Founding Fathers never intended the second amendment to mean we could bear arms, just militias.

They just forgot to enforce this for about 200 years or so.

That's not true. Every able-bodied man, 18-60 was part of the militia.
They had to maintain a weapon, musket balls and powder for use if they
were called upon.

The "Militia" WAS the American People not in the regular Army.

 

[MarkDuffy]

The Supreme Court has already decided that the government can limit what kinds of weapons private citizens can own without special permits. Time to extend that to the types of guns that Paddock used.

However, Moon Bat, the person that wrote that made that statement is not around to explain what the limits are.

We do have an opinion by the Court in the Miller case where they stated that the Second applied to weapons in use by the military.

If the filthy ass government has the right to take away semi auto weapons then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it is written on.

If the filthy ass government has the right to make a person get permission through a background check then the Bill of Rights stating that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it is written on.

We do have an opinion by the Court in the Miller case where they stated that the Second applied to weapons in use by the military.

Garbage

Gun control advocates argue that, for over six decades, the United States Circuit Courts, with very few exceptions, have cited Miller in rejecting challenges to federal firearms regulations.[6]

The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned Miller in only 7 subsequent cases: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010); Heller (2008); Printz (1997); Lewis (1980); Adams (1972); Atlanta Motel (1961); and Konigsberg (1961). Justice James Clark McReynolds authored the decision in United States v. Miller which was the only Supreme Court case that directly involved the Second Amendment until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.[9]

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

Heller is now the law of the land

 

[rightwinger]

It exists to ensure that well regulated militias have armed citizens to fill their ranks

There were no provisions for a standing army or compilation of arms
Our founders relied on the concept of well regulated militias to protect us

We have not needed those militias for 200 years

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Exactly my point. You only get to have single shot muskets.

Mr Doofy, the Constitution is a living breathing document that updates itself via case law to include automatic rifles for American citizen soldiers.

roflmao

Uh no

Some automatic weapons are legal, albeit heavily regulated

 

[JimBowie1958]

Exactly my point. You only get to have single shot muskets.

Mr Doofy, the Constitution is a living breathing document that updates itself via case law to include automatic rifles for American citizen soldiers.

roflmao

Uh no

Some automatic weapons are legal, albeit heavily regulated

Umm, yes.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Exactly my point. You only get to have single shot muskets.

Mr Doofy, the Constitution is a living breathing document that updates itself via case law to include automatic rifles for American citizen soldiers.

roflmao

Uh no

Some automatic weapons are legal, albeit heavily regulated

Umm, yes.

Damn, I need bigger pictures.

LOL

 

[rightwinger]

Actually it gives the reason in the amendment "being necessary for the security of a free state"

Very true

We needed well regulated militias to defend our free state
Individual civilians aren't worth shit

 

[Spare_change]

And because nowhere in the constitution does it say that conviction of a felony means you lose you right to bear arms, the day you are released from prison you are given your guns back, preferably cleaned and well oiled and ready for use.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that child pornography is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment either.

Perhaps you fail to understand the purpose of the Constitution. It isn't a laundry list of do's and don'ts for the people. It is an enumeration of permissions for the government, a definition of the government, if you will. Further, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" Thus, banning child pornography is, and should be, controlled by the States. This means, simply, that the federal government cannot expand its control without permission of the states, or the people. Of course, we have violated this hundreds of time, all in the name of "the general welfare".

We have committed numerous sins in the name of "the general welfare" clause. James Madison, one of the collaborators who developed the Constitution would tell you that if it ain't in the Constitution, you can do whatever you wish. Alexander Hamilton, on the other hand, believes that the "general welfare" clause allows the government to do whatever they wish - as long as they cloak it in promoting the general welfare.

Such is the Constitutional argument that continues until today.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Exactly my point. You only get to have single shot muskets.

Mr Doofy, the Constitution is a living breathing document that updates itself via case law to include automatic rifles for American citizen soldiers.

roflmao

Uh no

Some automatic weapons are legal, albeit heavily regulated

Umm, yes.

woot

 

[rightwinger]

A LONG, long time ago we thought well regulated militias could defend us
They needed citizens to bring their own guns

That is no longer the case