Supreme Court should rule 2nd Amendment as absolute for all states in the United States.

[BS Filter]

Not whatever. You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.

The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?

The right to self defense is inherent. That means it's not a government given right. That's why the Constitution says "shall not be infringed".

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.

You better read that 2nd amendment again. Notice the word "people". You liars always use the same script about that militia part. The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Why don't you try that bogus "settled law" next. Amateur.

 

[Colin norris]

The right to self defense is inherent. That means it's not a government given right. That's why the Constitution says "shall not be infringed".

The two are not connected by the constitution.
Youre right self defense doesn't include to use guns to do it. It does not mention self defense in the 2nd.

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.

Got it. Wheres the well armed militia? Youre not it.

You better read that 2nd amendment again. Notice the word "people".

thats right and it doesn't say anything about self defence.

You liars always use the same script about that militia part.

thats because it makes a specific reference to a military type protection. Not a rag tag bunch of wannabe rambos puffing up their egos.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

They do not disagree with me nor have they ever adjudicated on the validity if the 2nd. It has not been changed since it was written.

Why don't you try that bogus "settled law" next. Amateur.

Why don't you accept you are incapable of interpreting what it meant.
Youre so paranoid about guns giving you freedom, removing tyranny, self protection bullshit, you've let the gun culture run wild.
It didn't mention in the constitution about ratbag kids blowing away school children then use the same second to justify guns????
Is that how you interpret it?
Because is how you gun nuts have allowed the country to slide to the status of Columbia.

 

[BS Filter]

The two are not connected by the constitution.
Youre right self defense doesn't include to use guns to do it. It does not mention self defense in the 2nd.

Got it. Wheres the well armed militia? Youre not it.

thats right and it doesn't say anything about self defence.

thats because it makes a specific reference to a military type protection. Not a rag tag bunch of wannabe rambos puffing up their egos.

They do not disagree with me nor have they ever adjudicated on the validity if the 2nd. It has not been changed since it was written.


Why don't you accept you are incapable of interpreting what it meant.
Youre so paranoid about guns giving you freedom, removing tyranny, self protection bullshit, you've let the gun culture run wild.
It didn't mention in the constitution about ratbag kids blowing away school children then use the same second to justify guns????
Is that how you interpret it?
Because is how you gun nuts have allowed the country to slide to the status of Columbia.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fuck you, commie.

 

[whitehall]

There are legitimate restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights and the states can make their own laws pertaining to possession of a firearm. The solution is to elect politicians who are in favor of reasonable laws pertaining to firearms rather than relying on the sometimes quirky ruling of nine judges.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not whatever. You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.
The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?

Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry, and irrational fear.

 

[M14 Shooter]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fuck you, commie.

You are correct.
"Well regulated" modifies "militia"
The right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd, is held by the people.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia.
The people.
Thus, whatever"well regulated" and "militia", individually or together, may mean, it is irrelevant as who holds the right to keep and bear arms under the protection of the 2nd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are legitimate restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights....

So long as those restrictions do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms - sure.

and the states can make their own laws pertaining to possession of a firearm.

So long as those laws do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms - sure.

The solution is to elect politicians who are in favor of reasonable laws pertaining to firearms...

..."reasomable" meaning "semonstrably necessary and effective " - else they infrionge upon he right to keep and bear arms

rather than relying on the sometimes quirky ruling of nine judges.

Unforunately. those who continue to place unnecessary and ineffective restriction son the right to keep and bear arms necessitate the occasional visit to those 9 justices, to have said restrictions swatted down.

 

[Colin norris]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fuck you, commie.

How would my opinion be labeled as a communist?
I know republicans that are against guns. Are they communists also?
I know democrats who have guns, are they communists also?

Your frontal lobe is having an epileptic fit son.

 

[BS Filter]

How would my opinion be labeled as a communist?
I know republicans that are against guns. Are they communists also?
I know democrats who have guns, are they communists also?

Your frontal lobe is having an epileptic fit son.

Guns aren't the problem any more than cars are responsible for car wrecks and spoons are responsible for obesity. You're a fucking idiot.

 

[Colin norris]

Guns aren't the problem any more than cars are responsible for car wrecks and spoons are responsible for obesity. You're a fucking idiot.

Didn't see too many spoons kill kids at Sandy hook but I might have missed it.
You people will use any excuse as collateral damage to have unnecessary guns.

 

[BS Filter]

Didn't see too many spoons kill kids at Sandy hook but I might have missed it.
You people will use any excuse as collateral damage to have unnecessary guns.

So you believe a gun just jumped up and killed kids at a school? You're a special kind of stupid.

 

[Abatis]

We can see that the state of New York and many other infringer states, are violating their citizens second amendment rights.

Do you realize the 2nd Amendment was made enforceable on the states only 12 years ago?

Before 2010, no citizen had any "Second Amendment rights" against state or local gun laws.

In fact, New York citizens were and still are, at the complete mercy of their state lawmakers because New York is one of a few states that does not have a right to arms provision in their state constitution.

There's a reason why NY and Maryland and California and New Jeresy have the worst laws; they all share not having a right to arms provision in their state constitutions . . . Because of that, their lawmakers have just acted like they were free to enact any law they wanted, so they did.

The actual legal question (and answer from SCOTUS) is a lot more complicated than you present.

SCOTUS will not be holding that a federally enforced ("Second Amendment") right to carry concealed exists, nor will they be holding that states are forbidden to enact licensing requirements to carry a gun.

SCOTUS will be holding that the 2ndA does recognize and secure a right to bear arms in public for self defense and all states must recognize that right. The SCOTUS will knock down discriminatory "need" or "good cause" based issuance of any license, but setting the rules for the manner of carriage will remain in the state's perogative.

.

 

[Abatis]

The may issue provision before the Court now concerns solely that provision, nothing else.

Do you think the Supreme Court is going to allow the lower court's bullshit "two-step inquiry" to continue undisturbed? Do you think SCOTUS is going to reverse the 2nd Circuit's NYSRPA decision but not extend the order to the legal reasoning the Circuit used to screw this pooch and dozens of others?

I think the SCOTUS is going to completely and emphatically invalidate the Circuit judge two-step. The 50 or so gun law cases that have been decided using the Circuit judge two-step since 2008 and ignoring Heller, will all be challenged in short order.

That means the specific Circuit decisions sustaining state assault weapon bans and high-cap mag bans will each be challenged and they will be reversed and the bans all struck down . . .

I'm gonna call 2022 "Constitution Summer"!

.

 

[Abatis]

The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?

You seem to be confused; the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and the 2nd Amendment are two separate and distinct things.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say the 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed . . . The only "thing" that shall not be infringed is the inherent right to keep and bear arms, a right possessed by the people, not the militia.

The militia, as an organization and any member of it, has no need for a "right to keep and bear arms" . . . EVERYTHING an enrolled militia member does with his gun (even the act of acquiring it) is him obeying law, not exercising any right. As a militia member, his arm use is not exercising any immunity from government power and control it is an exercise in law and control.

Your theory and argument is absurd and linguistically, logically and legally incoherent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Didn't see too many spoons kill kids at Sandy hook but I might have missed it.
You people will use any excuse as collateral damage to have unnecessary guns.

Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance, bigotry, and irrational fear.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Stiff shit. The 2nd is well out of date.
It's a very poor justif8cation for wantIng to carry for no justifiably reason.

A free, armed and trained citizenry is the backbone of a republic. Just ask the Ukranians if you doubt that.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Not whatever. You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.

The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?

If a buffalo is attacked by a pack of wolves, does the buffalo have the natural right to kill the wolves in self defense? Yes, he does. The same right applies to humans.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Didn't see too many spoons kill kids at Sandy hook but I might have missed it.
You people will use any excuse as collateral damage to have unnecessary guns.

I saw a bunch of defenseless people killed at Sandy Hook, because all of the adults were unarmed, except for the murderer.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Not whatever. You were wrong in assuming it is a god given right so admit that first.

The right you speak of clearly states a well armed militia. Do you consider yourself trained enough to defend your state?

It says "the right of the people", not "the right of the militia".

 

[Colin norris]

It says "the right of the people", not "the right of the militia".

Here's what it says.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
Notice you are not regarded as the militia?


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
I don't disagree. My point is and always has been, why do you all have 6 guns that are never used for the purpose they are made. Youve never attempted to get rid of tyrannical govts like Obama and Biden. You said the relation was fraudulent and still never fired a shot.

See my point? You don't need semi automatic weapons nor most of the others ones either.
Its pure tough guy ego.