The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment

The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment​


The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,

..the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different.
 
But that's the point... we've given gun sellers blanket protections from liability..

You see, after the DC Snipers were caught, they realized that one of them was a convicted felon and the other was a minor, but they were able to get guns anyway. A jury found the gun store liable. Well, the gun industry marched right off to DC and demanded a law that protects gun sellers and manufacturers from liability when a Second Amendment Enthusiast gets too enthusiastic.


Why do you lie? Do you get a giggle out of posting these lies?

The gun makers are not immune from liability...if they make a defective gun, they can be sued for any damage it causes........they can't be sued because a 3rd party used their gun illegally.....just like the beer maker can't be sued when someone drives drunk...or the car maker can't be sued because someone drives drunk...

You simply want to use the democrat party legal warfare division to sue gun makers out of existence....
 
It only seems that way to those of a tyrannical mindset, who desire government to seize and abuse powers which the Constitution specifically denies to government.

Most of the Constitution is very clear, to those who do not have malicious intent to go against the principles established therein.

Actually, malicious is letting some crazy person shoot up a parade because you didn't want to fill out extra paperwork. That's malicious.

Except that that is what it explicitly says. It explicitly, unambiguously states that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to THE PEOPLE (not to the state, the federal government, nor any militia) and that government is forbidden from infringing this right.

The word gun is mentioned nowhere in the amendment... but a well regulated militia is.

Why do you lie? Do you get a giggle out of posting these lies?

The gun makers are not immune from liability...if they make a defective gun, they can be sued for any damage it causes........they can't be sued because a 3rd party used their gun illegally.....just like the beer maker can't be sued when someone drives drunk...or the car maker can't be sued because someone drives drunk...

You simply want to use the democrat party legal warfare division to sue gun makers out of existence....

naw, I just want them to clean up their act, and act responsibly, like every other industry does.

Take the banking industry. They did a LOT of irresponsible shit leading up to the housing crisis. Then they cracked down on them, they lost billions, and they changed a lot of how they do business.

The gun industry looks at a mass shooter, and runs off to Congress to make sure their families can't possibly collect because they sold a gun to a nutbag.
 
Wow, Rightwingers living in their own reality..

They stole the gun from the gun store, their status as a prohibited person was of no consequence.

because the gun store left the gun out where any fool could walk off with it. That was the negligent part.

The lawsuit was settled, no jury verdict was handed down.

Because they knew the minute they got crying families and crime photos in front of a jury, there wasn't much they could do about it

Well, since you have lied about every aspect you have stated so far, the chances you can support that statement, that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was lobbied for and a result of the settlement from the DC Snipier case, are less than zero . . . Especially since the negligent and criminal actions of the gun store would not have been covered by the PLCA.

Yawn, not going to play "find the links" with you..

You know damned well that's exactly why the gun industry rushed off and got that law... because they saw lawfare as the end of their corrupt industry.
 
Actually, malicious is letting some crazy person shoot up a parade because you didn't want to fill out extra paperwork. That's malicious.



The word gun is mentioned nowhere in the amendment... but a well regulated militia is.



naw, I just want them to clean up their act, and act responsibly, like every other industry does.

Take the banking industry. They did a LOT of irresponsible shit leading up to the housing crisis. Then they cracked down on them, they lost billions, and they changed a lot of how they do business.

The gun industry looks at a mass shooter, and runs off to Congress to make sure their families can't possibly collect because they sold a gun to a nutbag.
the firearms manufacturer doesnt sell firearms to any one except Gun shops.
 
the firearms manufacturer doesnt sell firearms to any one except Gun shops.

Gun Shops they know are marketing to people they shouldn't be.

Let's remember the Tobacco Lawsuit, when they finally got all the internal memos of the tobacco companies, and found out they were doing things like spiking the cigs with nicotine to make them more addictive and intentionally using cartoon characters to appeal to children.

Let's see what shakes out when we sue the gun industry?
 
Lying is what Incel Joe does. Lying is what Incel Joe is.

You might as well ask a house fly why it eats shit. A thing is what it is.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Says the guy who belongs to a cult started by a child molesting con man.

It just cannot help itself. Every time it opens its mouth, or touches a keyboard, lies come out. The more hateful, the more malevolent, the more absurd, the better, as far as it is concerned. A thing is what it is.
 
It doesn't happen here because we have highly trained bodyguards for most of our leaders. If only the rest of us had such protections.
No way! Are you suggesting that good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns?

That's a crazy idea that we've never ever heard of before. Where did you come up with that one?
 
Uh, no, Crazy Cat Lady, you guys can try to paint Jan 6 in nicer terms, but it was a riot incited by Trump where you lunatics thought you could overturn an election you lost.

And then like children who had been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, you tried to shift blame. "Well, you shouldn't have put the cookie jar where we could get at it so easily!"
January 6 was a riot incited by the FBI and their agent, Ray Epps - but mostly by the on-the-payroll FBI agents there that day.
 
Yes, the Constitution is badly written, we got that.
No, the Constitution is written very well and easily understood, then and now. You are just badly educated and don't know how to read it.

You see, when the Founding Slave Rapists said, "The people" what they really meant was "The White Landed Gentry".
That could be what they meant when they said "The people" but what is certain is that, when they said, "The people" they did not mean "the militia".
 
It just cannot help itself. Every time it opens its mouth, or touches a keyboard, lies come out. The more hateful, the more malevolent, the more absurd, the better, as far as it is concerned. A thing is what it is.

The history of your deranged cult is well documented, and you have yet to refute one thing I've pointed out about it.

Posts the man who votes for the democrat party, a party started by slave rapists…..

America was started by Slave Rapists... but you are generally fine with that.

No way! Are you suggesting that good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns?

That's a crazy idea that we've never ever heard of before. Where did you come up with that one?

Well trained good guys, yes.
Inbred morons with guns, not so much.

January 6 was a riot incited by the FBI and their agent, Ray Epps - but mostly by the on-the-payroll FBI agents there that day.
Really, I could have sworn it was Trump standing on that Podium screaming at his followers... It was on TV and everything.
 
It just cannot help itself. Every time it opens its mouth, or touches a keyboard, lies come out.

The history of your deranged cult is well documented, and you have yet to refute one thing I've pointed out about it.



America was started by Slave Rapists... but you are generally fine with that.



Well trained good guys, yes.
Inbred morons with guns, not so much.


Really, I could have sworn it was Trump standing on that Podium screaming at his followers... It was on TV and everything.

It just cannot help itself.
 
True or False. Firearms were restricted when the Second was passed by the Founders.
By the federal government?

Well, seeing as how the federal government had not actually been formed yet (the constitution had not yet been ratified) FALSE.

In fact, the first time the FedGov did any firearm legislation was the 1934 NFA, which Congress could only do as a TAX, indicating that EVERYBODY knew the FedGov had no authority except via taxation.

It remains unconstitutional to this day because an enumerated right cannot be limited by taxation.
 

Forum List

Back
Top