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.
Oh ... so close.
US V Miller, which heard the 1934 National Firearms Act held that the sawed off shotgun in question could be regulated because it had "No foreseeable MILITARY PURPOSE". So it is pretty obvious that the 2nd is ALL ABOUT protecting MILITARY weapons. No matter what the progressive left would like to think.
its specific to an individual right since it says "the right of the PEOPLE " no where does it say state,,Oh ... so close.
US V Miller, which heard the 1934 National Firearms Act held that the sawed off shotgun in question could be regulated because it had "No foreseeable MILITARY PURPOSE". So it is pretty obvious that the 2nd is ALL ABOUT protecting MILITARY weapons. No matter what the progressive left would like to think.
It relied on the "well regulated militia" lead in to the 2nd amendment to conclude the reason for the right to bear arms, was because the state militia, hence the people needed them. And since a sawed-off shotgun was not a likely military weapon, the militia, aka the people, did not have use for, or a right to them.
It also gave the 2nd as a state right, and not an individual right.
Today, it would mean arms comparable to what we issue our soldiers, meaning true assault rifles, capable of both semi-automatic and either fully-automatic or burst-fire operation—Exactly the weapons which our government, in its degenerate corruption, most refuses to allow us to possess.
its specific to an individual right since it says "the right of the PEOPLE " no where does it say state,,It also gave the 2nd as a state right, and not an individual right.
Wouldn't needing a permit to hold a rally, be a restriction of the 1st amendment akin to a carry permit being a restriction on the 2nd.
Can you dig up a founding father and ask him if that is what they intended? If not, your wrong.There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.
This could present risks to society in America but the risks need to be accepted as necessary for the upholding of the intent of the 2nd. amendment. If any American objects to the sacred rights as stated by the 2nd. amendment then they have the option of purchasing their own weapons with which to defend themselves from harm.
The extreme example: A person released from prison who has murdered with his gun has the right to walk straight across the street from the prison and purchase a gun or guns. The only thing stopping him would be a background check being required to purchase a gun.
On the surface it could seem to be counter-productive to a peaceful society. It might be but there is no legitimate means to stop him unless the 2nd. amendment's unconditional rights are infringed upon.
And so for those who are hesitant to accept the full and complete rights as spelled out by their 2nd. amendment, is there any possible law that could be enacted that could curtail the ex-criminal's rights?
I say there is none! The 2nd. amendment isn't open for compromise for any reason or for any socialist cause.
Opinions?
I do when the first part is a waste of time and the second half is so wrong,,its specific to an individual right since it says "the right of the PEOPLE " no where does it say state,,It also gave the 2nd as a state right, and not an individual right.
Do you always skip the first half of a sentence, in order to apply the second half unrestricted from the first?
Lying commie shit stain. Why don't you come get them? CowardOh ... so close.
US V Miller, which heard the 1934 National Firearms Act held that the sawed off shotgun in question could be regulated because it had "No foreseeable MILITARY PURPOSE". So it is pretty obvious that the 2nd is ALL ABOUT protecting MILITARY weapons. No matter what the progressive left would like to think.
It relied on the "well regulated militia" lead in to the 2nd amendment to conclude the reason for the right to bear arms, was because the state militia, hence the people needed them. And since a sawed-off shotgun was not a likely military weapon, the militia, aka the people, did not have use for, or a right to them.
It also gave the 2nd as a state right, and not an individual right.
Speaking of constitutional rights. What gives the government the right to require a person wear clothing in public? It's a violation of religious freedom?
I do not agree with the requirement for a permit on the basis of it being a permit to exercise an explicitly-affirmed Constitutional right.
Speaking of constitutional rights. What gives the government the right to require a person wear clothing in public? It's it a violation of religious freedom?
I do not agree with the requirement for a permit on the basis of it being a permit to exercise an explicitly-affirmed Constitutional right.
God created man and woman in their nakedness, and intended them to live their lives that way. Clothes are actual a sign that you disobeyed Gods words.
Yet, you would support government violate that religious freedom.
When building automobiles for export to Great Britain, always install the steering wheel on the right hand side.I do when the first part is a waste of time and the second half is so wrong,,
do you always ignore the point and make it personal??
why did you edit my comment out of context??When building automobiles for export to Great Britain, always install the steering wheel on the right hand side.I do when the first part is a waste of time and the second half is so wrong,,
do you always ignore the point and make it personal??
Your 2nd amendment interpretation would put the steering wheel on the wrong side for American cars.
There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.
This could present risks to society in America but the risks need to be accepted as necessary for the upholding of the intent of the 2nd. amendment. If any American objects to the sacred rights as stated by the 2nd. amendment then they have the option of purchasing their own weapons with which to defend themselves from harm.
The extreme example: A person released from prison who has murdered with his gun has the right to walk straight across the street from the prison and purchase a gun or guns. The only thing stopping him would be a background check being required to purchase a gun.
On the surface it could seem to be counter-productive to a peaceful society. It might be but there is no legitimate means to stop him unless the 2nd. amendment's unconditional rights are infringed upon.
And so for those who are hesitant to accept the full and complete rights as spelled out by their 2nd. amendment, is there any possible law that could be enacted that could curtail the ex-criminal's rights?
I say there is none! The 2nd. amendment isn't open for compromise for any reason or for any socialist cause.
Opinions?
you forgot to say which religion requires nudity,,,
The meaning wasn't altered. But it did leave off the last paragraph. But then, you were just rambling.why did you edit my comment out of context??
So, unconditional means....
1) People can buy nukes, as many nukes as they like.
2) The insane can have any weapons they like
3) prisoners in prison can have any weapons they like
Right.......
Like voting? Freedom of speech and government redress?
So, unconditional means....
1) People can buy nukes, as many nukes as they like.
2) The insane can have any weapons they like
3) prisoners in prison can have any weapons they like
Right.......
They say that the government can't infringe on a constitutional right. Hence "the people" have the right to bear arms, any arm, and under any circumstance.
So, unconditional means....
1) People can buy nukes, as many nukes as they like.
2) The insane can have any weapons they like
3) prisoners in prison can have any weapons they like
Right.......
They say that the government can't infringe on a constitutional right. Hence "the people" have the right to bear arms, any arm, and under any circumstance.
They say that the government can't infringe on a constitutional right. Hence "the people" have the right to bear arms, any arm, and under any circumstance.
So, you agree that the 2nd Amendment protect the rights of people to own nukes then?
They say that the government can't infringe on a constitutional right. Hence "the people" have the right to bear arms, any arm, and under any circumstance.
So, you agree that the 2nd Amendment protect the rights of people to own nukes then?
Of course not. I thought the NRA went off the deep end, when they refused to allow any line to be drawn for firearms that should be kept out of civilian hands.
