Biden says “No Amendment to the Constitution is absolute”

[danielpalos]

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

The People are the Militia.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Rigby5]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

No, the contents of the constitution requires a complex amendment process in order to be changed at all, by anyone.
It is true that no right is absolute, but the 2nd amendment is not a right but instead an absolute restriction against any federal weapons jurisdiction, and that can and was intended to be absolute.

If you look at the body of the constitution, there is no article that gives the federal government any authority or jurisdiction over weapons at all. And the 9th and 10th amendment then prohibit any federal laws on weapons because they say the federal government can only do what is explicit authorized for them to do in the body of the constitution.
No specific article authorizing federal weapons laws, means any federal weapons law is illegal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

Dementia Joe Biden is a fucking idiot.........

He gunna put y'all back in chains!!

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
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.

 

[Rigby5]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

The "well regulated militia" part does seem to be an attempt to justify why firearm rights "shall not be infringed", I will agree with that.
But giving one reason does not mean there are not others unenumerated as well.
And the one reason they do list is a pretty good one, that still means there should never be any federal firearms laws.
And that is to ensure that all citizens have the opportunity to be well versed and proficient in the use of arms.
The idea of having your whole population as a well armed force that can be relied on as a potential militia if necessary, is a good one. We often see how that comes in handy, such as in disaster scenes.

The reality is there is no need at all for ANY federal weapons laws, and any federal weapons laws automatically open the door for a dictatorship that could not only rule by force, but prevent any dissent. Each state should be setting their own weapons laws. AL should differ greatly from NY.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

The "well regulated militia" part does seem to be an attempt to justify why firearm rights "shall not be infringed", I will agree with that.
But giving one reason does not mean there are not others unenumerated as well.
And the one reason they do list is a pretty good one, that still means there should never be any federal firearms laws.
And that is to ensure that all citizens have the opportunity to be well versed and proficient in the use of arms.
The idea of having your whole population as a well armed force that can be relied on as a potential militia if necessary, is a good one. We often see how that comes in handy, such as in disaster scenes.

The reality is there is no need at all for ANY federal weapons laws, and any federal weapons laws automatically open the door for a dictatorship that could not only rule by force, but prevent any dissent. Each state should be setting their own weapons laws. AL should differ greatly from NY.

CORRECT THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY FIREARM LAWS
We already have laws against murder, robbery assault rape

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

Well regulated when the second amendment was written meant in working order as to be expected

 

[Crepitus]

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

He's correct. There are almost always loopholes.

If he wasn't you'd all be training with your state militia several times a year at least.

 

[Nostra]

The Vegetable In Chief has never read the Constitution.

 

[Smokin' OP]

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.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
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.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

 

[justinacolmena]

Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

RW? What's that? Did you forget the NJ?

 

[Smokin' OP]

Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

RW? What's that? Did you forget the NJ?

Must have, want to give SOME , some semblance of rationality.

 

[pknopp]

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

He's correct. There are almost always loopholes.

If he wasn't you'd all be training with your state militia several times a year at least.

There are court rulings where one right conflicts with others. Those are not "loopholes".

 

[Lastamender]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

Nothing is something Biden does very well.

 

[Crepitus]

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

He's correct. There are almost always loopholes.

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

He's correct. There are almost always loopholes.

If he wasn't you'd all be training with your state militia several times a year at least.

There are court rulings where one right conflicts with others. Those are not "loopholes".

Lol, that's the very definition of loopholes.

 

[pknopp]

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

He's correct. There are almost always loopholes.

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

He's correct. There are almost always loopholes.

If he wasn't you'd all be training with your state militia several times a year at least.

There are court rulings where one right conflicts with others. Those are not "loopholes".

Lol, that's the very definition of loopholes.

It's nothing of the sort. Court rulings are not loopholes.

 

[Hossfly]

 

[BluesLegend]

The Vegetable In Chief has never read the Constitution.

Dementia Joe should really avoid commenting on the law, or well anything.

 

[BS Filter]

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

Didnt he take an oath regarding the Constitution? Seems like he needs to be impeached