Supreme Ct Says All Individuals Have Right To Bear Arms

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
94,597
Reaction score
10,009
Points
2,030
You need remedial english. interpret is not rewriting.YOU ARE STUPID
I beg to differ- ask John Roberts- ya know, that Supreme that wears a black dress- a fine, is a tax instead- yeah, that guy in a black dress-
Are you going to obsess over the supreme court justices robes now, weakling? It’s not entertaining enough to shriek like a little girl about “da jooos, da jooooooos” all the time? If you have any intention of ever growing up you might want to get started soon, you pathetic little nitwit.
 

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
13,795
Reaction score
5,703
Points
400
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.
Not entirely true.

As one example… Puckle gun - Wikipedia

There were other examples of similar technology, scarce, but known, at that time, and certainly plenty of reason to suppose that weapons technology would continue to advance, as it already had from throwing rocks, to spears, to bows and arrows, to cannon, to the hand-cannon, to matchlocks, and to the flintlocks that were in common use at this time.

And at this time, when the First Amendment was also written, there were really only two common ways to get a message out to the public. You could stand on a soapbox in the town square, and give a speech to any who would listen to you, or you could use a primitive hand-cranked printing press to publish a paper. The men who wrote the First Amendment might have been able to envision that printing press technology would improve, but they surely never could have known what electronic would achieve—telegraph, telephone, teletype, radio, television, and eventually, the Internet. Could they have imagined that one day, any fool at home in front of his personal computer, could post a message on a forum like this, or on a social media platform, and have it instantly seen by people all over the world?

I think it is absurd that the authors of the Bill of Rights assumed that technology would stop advancing as soon as it was ratified, or that they intended to apply only to the technology that existed at that moment.
 

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
13,795
Reaction score
5,703
Points
400
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Felons should not be allowed to own a gun there's a reason for that you know.
I'm fine with anyone who has committed a crime having all his rights restored, once he has completed his sentence, and “paid his debt to society”.

An important thing that has been lost is that it used to be that anyone who was convicted of a crime serious enough to warrant permanent loss of any rights, would serve his sentence at the end of a rope, after which,it would be moot to worry about whether he should be allowed to possess arms. Let his guns be buried with him in his grave, if that's what he wants, though it'd be a bit wasteful to so treat valuable property that could better be used by the living.
 

Dick Foster

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
8,310
Reaction score
4,891
Points
1,065
Location
The People's Republic of the Californicated
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment
The second amendment is one single two part sentence written in clear, concise and certain language so needs no interpretation. It states the law and also explains why it exists. It along with the supremacy clause renders all gun laws at any level within these United States un constitutional, un enforceable and illegal. There's a beginning and end to it. It's just that simple.
No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.
Bullshit! The second amendment was penned with the events of Lexington and Concord fresh in the minds of the founders. Cannon and shot were involved in that incident which were the weapons of mass destruction of the day. The founders chose their words wisely using the word "arms" and not guns to purposely keep the 2nd both broad and lasting in its meaning so it would stay up to date and current.
You're simply full of shit and know nothing of our history. You would do well to keep your mouth shut in future so as not to display your ignorance and limited IQ so broadly. You can't hide your short comings by parroting other idiots, you only reinforce them.
ROTFL! Cannon in the 18th century were all single shot muzzleloaders. HAHAHAHA!
You are indeed a brainless boob and a waste of food, air and the space you occupy on this planet. You have no more ability to reason than a turnip.
 

Rogue AI

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
571
Reaction score
704
Points
483
Location
Wisconsin
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment
The second amendment is one single two part sentence written in clear, concise and certain language so needs no interpretation. It states the law and also explains why it exists. It along with the supremacy clause renders all gun laws at any level within these United States un constitutional, un enforceable and illegal. There's a beginning and end to it. It's just that simple.
No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.
Hardly. The Founders used privateers, those privateers were expected to purchase their own weapons of war. They had no problem with private citizens owning cannons and the like.
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
8,767
Reaction score
1,815
Points
290
Location
GNO
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment
The second amendment is one single two part sentence written in clear, concise and certain language so needs no interpretation. It states the law and also explains why it exists. It along with the supremacy clause renders all gun laws at any level within these United States un constitutional, un enforceable and illegal. There's a beginning and end to it. It's just that simple.
No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.
There where also no computers, smart phones or internet. If you want to use that line of reasoning you should be ignored until you write it up using a quill and ink and have it delivered to everyone by a guy on horseback.
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
8,767
Reaction score
1,815
Points
290
Location
GNO
How about the right to arm bears?
And the point of going over already ruled upon law?
You afraid somebody's coming for your guns.....again?
Xi's man has vowed to disarm the peasants as the Chinese Communist Party explains here;


But it's interesting to note that as Quid Pro wants to leave the proles defenseless;


So the Maoist thugs who are behind corrupt old Bai-Degn are facing down more Americans than ever.

Quid Pro still plans to have the Furry as his czar of disarming the populace if he gets the steal, right?


Hey, a man who dresses up like a squirrel to get buttfucked is eminently qualified to tell Americans to disarm.

View attachment 418323
No one has said anything of the sort. Sensible gun control measures do not involve confiscation. But please, fear monger away.
Your so called sensible gun control doesn't effect criminals.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top