- Nov 15, 2008
- Reaction score
- Phoenix, AZ
Obviously?No, it isn't.The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.
That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.
What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?