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.
The USSC held , in McDonald v Chicago, that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right held by the people, specifically protected by the constitution. As such, it has equal standing with all the other rights protected by the bill of rights, including, but not limited to, the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, the freedom of the press and the free exercise of religionRecognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
Thats why Dims want to murder members of the USSC now.The USSC held , in McDonald v Chicago, that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right held by the people and specifically protected by the constitution. As such, it has equal standing with all the other rights protected by the bill of rights, including, but not limited to, the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, the freedom of the press and the free exercise of religion
So... No.
Of course.Thats why Dims want to murder members of the USSC now.
Nothing more, yeah that's true in the minds of those who kill by sport and support putting a gun into the hands of every person.
But, when it happens some people don't seem to care.It's against the law to murder children in school classrooms.
"The Right doesn't shoot children".The right doesn't shoot children. The left kills them before they're born and supports an administration that sends American infants' formula to illegals at southern border and to Ukraine putting American infant citizens at risk. It's all a matter of how it's done obviously.
"The Right doesn't shoot children".
They just stand by and watch after it happens and make 100 excuses for why nothing can be done to change things.
I'm thinking if there was ever a mass shooting at their children's or grandchildren's school, they might feel differently.
The language of the 2ndA does not guarantee an individual right to bear arms. The prefatory clause qualifies the right as a matter of the need for a "well regulated militia".It is amazing how brazen you filthy ass Left Wing turds have become.
Like all filthy Leftest your agenda has always been to take firearms away from the people so that your almighty state would be the supreme power. You can't have anybody to resist making this country a Socialist shithole so the guns have to go.
It use to be that you deranged assholes hid your agenda by claiming that you support the Second but just wanted "reasonable gun control".
Now you dickheads are brazen about doing away with a fundamental right in the Constitution of this country and that is despicable.
It is not about public safety because the crooks will always have access to what they need to commit their crimes, even illegally.
It is about reducing the ability of the people to resist government power. Our Founding Fathers understood that power needs to be in the hands of the people, not the government. Stupid uneducated Libtards like you have no concept of what they were talking about do you? You Moon Bats are as confused about the Constitution as you are confused about Economics, History, Climate Science, Biology and Ethics, aren't you?
Sorry to bust your bubble but that issue has already been resolved by the Supreme Court.The language of the 2ndA does not guarantee an individual right to bear arms. The prefatory clause qualifies the right as a matter of the need for a "well regulated militia".
The language of the 2ndA does not guarantee an individual right to bear arms. The prefatory clause qualifies the right as a matter of the need for a "well regulated militia".
Group rights are an oxymoron.The language of the 2ndA does not guarantee an individual right to bear arms. The prefatory clause qualifies the right as a matter of the need for a "well regulated militia".
Yes, an activist court interpreted a stand-alone individual right by ignoring the prefatory clause which proves only that high school grammar is not taught in law school.
Unless you re-write the 2ndA which would require a 2/3 majority vote, the prefatory justification in the 2ndA can only be ignored by practicing deceit or ignorance.
Of course, the kind of errors in rational thought displayed in the Heller Case are eventually overcome, and hence, I suggest that the gun lobby prepare themselves for the application of regulations as prescribed by the 2ndA.
When a poster drops to the level of a crude personal attack, I take it as frustration born of the inability to tender a real argument.Fuck you
In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: "... I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
No need to apologize as no bubble was busted.Sorry to bust your bubble but that issue has already been resolved by the Supreme Court.
What else you got?
It does say that. It also ties that right to a well-regulated militia - something that is ignored by activist judges and the gun lobby.It says the right of the people, not the right of the militia.
It does say that. It also ties that right to a well-regulated militia - something that is ignored by activist judges and the gun lobby.
Exactly what contradiction is it that you see in the 2ndA?Group rights are an oxymoron.
How is it tied to the militia?It does say that. It also ties that right to a well-regulated militia - something that is ignored by activist judges and the gun lobby.
Grammatically, the 2ndA is not a simple sentence but a complex sentence. Do you know the difference? Can you define for me the purpose of a "prefatory clause"?
None, because it's not a group right.Exactly what contradiction is it that you see in the 2ndA?
The only contradiction I see is in the grammatical nonsense that confers a right that is not expressed. The facetious reasoning in the Heller Case redacted the opening clause in the 2ndA. Where was the two-thirds vote that authorized the change?
