The assault weapon ban? Not about mass shooters, it’s about Rittenhouse and McCloskys…..

[Auld Phart]

For 30 plus years that's what they claimed, wanna buy a howitzer?
You can, but guess what, IT comes with regulations.

For 30 plus years that's what they claimed, wanna buy a howitzer?

same can be said about actual assault weapons.

 

[Darkwind]

Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Like open heart surgery, first anesthetize the patient.

Trumptards: "NAW, don't need none of that".
"That causes your heart to go bad"

It has been explained a hundred thousand times, and still you folks don't get it.

The first half of the Amendment is an explanatory clause that provides the justification for the Amendment and does NOT alter the meat of the sentence which is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

That declaration is as specific as it gets. The right to the "People". That is all of us. The reason we have this right? Is to fight tyranny, which is what the Militia was used for in our war of independence against the most powerful army on the planet; using the most modern weapons of the time they lived.

 

[Darkwind]

Conservatives ignore Second Amendment case law as well – AWBs are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

AWBs neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.

They haven't been invalidated by the SCOTUS, yet. They are invalidated daily in American life.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The Right of the people to keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The PEOPLE got the Right, not just the militia.

Thanks to the supreme court, NOT the constitution.

So, can you own a RPG, a automatic M-16, grenades?

There is no need to further prove you're an idiot.

Everyone is well aware of it,

Sure you moron post a picture of your box of hand grenades you purchased from amazon.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

It has been explained a hundred thousand times, and still you folks don't get it.

RWNJ's never will.

The first half of the Amendment is an explanatory clause that provides the justification for the Amendment and does NOT alter the meat of the sentence which is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

YES, it does.
WHY is it IN there, then?
It's a matter of following simple instructions.
Do you skip the first step and go right for step four?

That declaration is as specific as it gets. The right to the "People". That is all of us.

IF you skip the first part................sure.

The reason we have this right?

The militia needed people to fight.

Is to fight tyranny, which is what the Militia was used for in our war of independence against the most powerful army on the planet; using the most modern weapons of the time they lived.

 

[Auld Phart]

Thanks to the supreme court, NOT the constitution.

So, can you own a RPG, a automatic M-16, grenades?

Sure you moron post a picture of your box of hand grenades you purchased from amazon.

So, can you own a RPG, a automatic M-16, grenades?

dot the i's, cross the t's, pass the. background check, put your money on the table,

(are you sure you're not a card carrying moron? You sure act the part.)

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You don't seem to understand the use of being clauses of the time period.

WTF?
So, just abandon the entire constitution............. because of CLAUSES?

The right of the people is the subject of the Second not the militia.

HOLY FUCK.
THAT'S what the supreme court claimed..............while ignoring the rest.

 

[Flash]

YEAH, ONE job...................and they couldn't get THAT right.

OH' boy "strongly affirmed"..........................like Trump "strongly affirmed" he won the election.

The word is DRIVEL you moron, and you have plenty of it.

 

[Flash]

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

same can be said about actual assault weapons.

Dangerous weapons?
In the wrong hands.

So, in Trumplandia, would you give a pocketknife to a 4 year old, without proper instruction?
THAT'S what they are doing with dangerous weapons with no experience necessary.
Just because "MY RIGHTS".

 

[Flash]

Dangerous weapons?
In the wrong hands.

So, in Trumplandia, would you give a pocketknife to a 4 year old, without proper instruction?
THAT'S what they are doing with dangerous weapons with no experience necessary.
Just because "MY RIGHTS".

 

[Auld Phart]

Dangerous weapons?
In the wrong hands.

So, in Trumplandia, would you give a pocketknife to a 4 year old, without proper instruction?
THAT'S what they are doing with dangerous weapons with no experience necessary.
Just because "MY RIGHTS".

 

[Darkwind]

RWNJ's never will.

YES, it does.
WHY is it IN there, then?
It's a matter of following simple instructions.
Do you skip the first step and go right for step four?


IF you skip the first part................sure.

The militia needed people to fight.

I would post a link to you explaining it, but it requires an open mind to understand it and a little knowledge about how the English language works. Somehow, I don't think you'll read it, but here goes anyway:

https://virginiainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2002/06/VIPP-Policy-Primer-Right_to_Bear_Arms.pdf

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

View attachment 676298

OK, your retarded, STILL with a SCOTUS?
THAT'S THEIR OPINION.

 

[Blues Man]

Thanks to the supreme court, NOT the constitution.

So, can you own a RPG, a automatic M-16, grenades?

Sure you moron post a picture of your box of hand grenades you purchased from amazon.

Yes you can own fully automatic weapons.

Look it up.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

View attachment 676302

YES, YOU ARE, MORON.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Yes you can own fully automatic weapons.

Look it up.

No shit.
Buuuuuut what are the regulations, fees and tracking possessions and transfers?
Oh' darn.

 

[Auld Phart]

No shit.
Buuuuuut what are the regulations, fees and tracking possessions and transfers?
Oh' darn.

in place to keep morons like you from buying one.

 

[Darkwind]

From the Primer:

THE MILITIA PREFACE It should come as no surprise that there are so many obvious problems with reading the operative clause of the Second Amendment to protect any sort of right belonging to state governments. If the Constitution had simply provided that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” nobody could maintain with a straight face that the provision could mean anything other than that individuals have that right. Doubts about the plain and obvious meaning of that clause have been raised only because of the prefatory phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . ”

Before looking at these words more closely, we should pause to focus on a few things that the Second Amendment does not say: |

1.. It emphatically does not say that it protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.
2. Nor does the Second Amendment say that the people’s right to arms is sufficient to establish a well regulated militia, or that a well regulated militia is sufficient for the security of a free state.
3. Nor does the Second Amendment say that the right of the people to keep and bears arms is protected only to the extent that such a right fosters a well regulated militia or the security of a free state.

As these observations suggest, the grammar of the Second Amendment emphasizes the indefiniteness of the relation between the introductory participial phrase and the main clause. If you parse the Amendment, it quickly becomes obvious that the first half of the sentence is an absolute phrase (or ablative absolute) that does not modify or limit any word in the main clause. The usual function of absolute phrases is to convey information about the circumstances surrounding the statement in the main clause, such as its cause. For example: “The teacher being ill, class was cancelled.”

The importance of this can be illustrated with a simple example.

Suppose the Constitution provided:

A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.13


This provision, which is grammatically identical to the Second Amendment, obviously means the following: because a well educated electorate is necessary to the health of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. The sentence does not say, imply, or even suggest that only registered voters have a right to books. Nor does the sentence say, imply, or even suggest that the right to books may be exercised only by state employees. Nor does the lack of identity between the electorate and the people create some kind of grammatical or linguistic tension within the sentence. It is perfectly reasonable for a constitution to give everyone a right to books as a means of fostering a well educated electorate. The goal might or might not be reached, and it could have been pursued by numerous other means. The creation of a general individual right, moreover, would certainly have other effects besides its impact on the electorate’s If the grammatically limiting language of the Patent and Copyright Clause does not in fact limit the power granted by that clause, the prefatory language of the Second Amendment---- which does not serve a limiting function grammatically---- cannot possibly limit the scope of the right in the amendment’s operative clause. A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms 6 Virginia Institute for Public Policy educational level. And lots of legitimate questions could be raised about the scope of the right to books. But none of this offers the slightest reason to be mystified by the basic meaning of the sentence.

The Second Amendment is no different. Modern readers may have difficulty in seeing how a general right of individuals to keep and bear arms could contribute to a well regulated militia and to the security of a free state, and we shall explore that question in more detail below. But the text of the Second Amendment offers not the slightest warrant for presupposing that the answer to the question is that its framers were semi-literate fools who meant to say something like “The states shall have the right to maintain independent military forces for use against the federal government.”

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I would post a link to you explaining it, but it requires an open mind to understand it and a little knowledge about how the English language works. Somehow, I don't think you'll read it, but here goes anyway:

https://virginiainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2002/06/VIPP-Policy-Primer-Right_to_Bear_Arms.pdf

INTRODUCTION
The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly difficult to understand. On the contrary, for more than a hundred years after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about what it meant. The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret this provision of the Constitution became very strong.

That's as far as I got, more RWNJ horse shit.

Let me repeat for the maybe 1,000 time..............NO ONE WANTS TO disarm ANYONE.
Unless they are too stupid, a criminal or mentally ill to own a weapon and operate it properly.

That would be 97% of Trumptards.