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.
Second Amendment is about militias, not gun ownership. The word "Gun" appears nowhere in that amendment.
If you want to include "arms", then why are so many weapons illegal to own, from Weaponized Anthrax to Num-chuks.
Really?The Constitution cannot legitimately be “suspended”.
It is the highest law in this nation, and it remains so no matter what excuses corrupt politicians might try to use to get around it.
Bogus argument indeed.The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights.
The only connection the right of abortion has is Roe v Wade and that can be redefined.
Bogus argument.
Even if true, it does not mean it -can- be legitimately suspended.Really?
Corrupt people wanted Trump to suspend it.
Bogus argument indeed.
Look at the firearms control act of 1934.
Look at the firearms control act of 1934.
That the government has blatantly violated the Constitution on many occasions, and has been allowed to get away with it, does not mean that these violations are justifiable or legitimate. It only shows that government is corrupt.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Be specific and tell us what exactly you think is suicidal about following the Constitution?The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
No one has ever credibly claimed that it is.
The only creatures who ever make this absurd statement are those who support lawlessness and corruption, who do not want the Constitution to be obeyed.
The underlying premise that there is anything suicidal about obeying the Constitution is, of course, a blatant lie, and those who make this claim know damn well that it is a lie.
The only significance that any sane person should ever grant to this statement is to take it as a complete refutation of any and all credibility of any creature who makes this statement.
A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.[1][2]
Oh, allowing people to spread Covid because "Freedom".Be specific and tell us what exactly you think is suicidal about following the Constitution?
In other words you have no valid complaint. Noted.Actually, the first person who expressed such an opinion was - wait for it - Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote:
Stop dissing Tommie Jefferson! That's my job!
The actual formulation of the phrase came from a riot case in Chicago.
In the 1949 case Terminiello v. City of Chicago, the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a priest whose rantings at a rally had incited a riot. The court held that Chicago's breach of the peace ordinance violated the First Amendment.
Associate Justice Robert Jackson wrote a twenty-four page dissent in response to the court's four page decision, which concluded: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
Oh, allowing people to spread Covid because "Freedom".
Letting crazy people own guns because the Founding Slave Rapists couldn't clearly define a militia.
You know, crazy stuff like that which gets people killed.
In other words you have no valid complaint. Noted.
Did you need someone to explain the big words to you?As for the specifics crazy people are already barred from owning firearms and vaccinated people spread the virus more then unvacced.
No shit, genius.Even if true, it does not mean it -can- be legitimately suspended.
I did, it just flew over your head, as usual.But good to know -you- know you could not address his point.
So, for 85 years no one thought to fix this injustice?That the government has blatantly violated the Constitution on many occasions, and has been allowed to get away with it, does not mean that these violations are justifiable or legitimate. It only shows that government is corrupt.
I did, it just flew over your head, as usual.
