The ghettos have men and women. Who controls the ghettos? It is closer to primal there.Lol you’re right it doesn’t. That’s why it was pointless for you to define it as able bodied males
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The ghettos have men and women. Who controls the ghettos? It is closer to primal there.Lol you’re right it doesn’t. That’s why it was pointless for you to define it as able bodied males
With one caveat.... The due process clause allows rights to be removed after adjudication for crimes. ie: depravation of rights.The full text of the Second Amendment applies to every single last American, period. Further, due to the very recent pro-Second Amendment ruling, the Supreme Court has rendered ALL current and future gun laws unconstitutional, period. If a law or rule or legal process did not exist at the time the Second Amendment was written then it cannot be applied to modern day control gun restrictions, infringements or laws. For instance, in 1791 no laws existed which restricted or prohibited a convicted felon from owning a firearm, restricted 18-21 year old Americans from owning firearms; no red flag laws existed, no magazine or barrel length or suppressor restrictions existed, no age requirements at all, no laws for possessing, transporting or storing firearms and on and on. Pretty soon, due to the recent SC ruling, NO GUN LAWS will remain in the United States. Hope you have a great day, dude . . . chewing on all that.
Because before Heller, the Second Amendment was understood to be a collective, not individual, right.What would make you say that?
Now, now. Jonesy is smarter than any constitutional lawyer -- because he says so.I'd like to see that fool debate a constitutional lawyer
Uh huh. You'll support gun confiscation without question or hesitation when you're told to.Uh no i don’t. You gun nuts come up with such silly stuff. You’ll say anything to justify the fantasy you have about suits showing up at your door and saying “give me your guns! I’m here to collect!” You would respond with “come take it mother fucker!”
Something like that will NEVER happen so long as the current government exists. It’s just a fantasy you entertain because it makes you feel like a badass.
Why would I be expecting that? I even made it clear I am not opposed to gun ownership.
Now, now. Jonesy is smarter than any constitutional lawyer -- because he says so.
Spoken like a true government bootlicker.Insurrectionist dogma is completely devoid of Constitutional merit.
There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to 'take up arms’ against a lawfully, constitutionally elected government incorrectly and subjectively perceived by an armed minority to have ‘become tyrannical.’
There is no ‘right’ of private citizens to have the same arms as the military.
There is no ‘right’ of private citizens to be ‘exempt’ from state and Federal firearm regulatory measures because they falsely claim to be in a ‘militia.’
The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with the militia.
So you must not have desired to Purchase a Pistol that is not on the Roster in California latelyCorrect.
Guns are not going to be ‘banned’; guns are not going to be ‘confiscated.’
Such ridiculous rhetoric is nothing but fearmongering and lies contrived by the dishonest right.
"Scalia". You misspelled "the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution". Scalia invented nothing. He told you leftists that your whack-job interpretation is full of crap.That’s why Scalia contrived the individual right unconnected to militia service.
Doesn't matter in the slightest... but I realize that's as close as you come to intelligent feedback on the remark...Looks like Kondor failed commas in school too.
The rightwing will cite court precedent for this issue, but they don’t actually offer an explanation for why it should be interpreted this way.
FUCKING LIAR!!!!Correct.
Guns are not going to be ‘banned’; guns are not going to be ‘confiscated.’
Such ridiculous rhetoric is nothing but fearmongering and lies contrived by the dishonest right.
To simplify that for him any further, you might have to switch to 'connect the dots' and crayons.Billy000
What you are missing is the philosophy behind the concept if the Bill of Rights.
Mostly what the Bill of Rights tells the Federal Government is what it can't do.
The government can't make laws establishing religion.
It can't restrict speech, assembly, the press, citizens peaceful protests or religious freedom.
It can't force homeowners to house soldiers.
It can't search or seize personal property without a warrant based on probable cause.
You see a pattern here.
It's a document of "can'ts" ... what the government does not have the power to do.
The Bill of Rights doesn't give power to the government...nor does it grant rights ... it explains the natural rights if the people and it states that the government is forever barred for attempting to infringe on those natural right.
The militia clause is irrelevant except as a way to convey that the arms were for a defensive use.
If the Constitution said "A free and robust circulation of newspapers, being essential to the well being of a free state, the right of the people to establish a free and unfettered press shall not be infringed."
It the newspaper clause important?
If newspapers were no longer printed and all news was digital...could the government then infringe on the PEOPLES right to a free and unfettered press?
If course not. That would be idiotic.
Lol this is so stupid.Uh huh. You'll support gun confiscation without question or hesitation when you're told to.
You are a moron.Because before Heller, the Second Amendment was understood to be a collective, not individual, right.
Under the collective right theory, private ownership of guns was justified only as a means to maintain a militia.
With the Militia Act of 1908 along with other measures, the ‘justification’ for private citizens to possess firearms was eliminated, as there were no longer ‘militia’ for private armed citizens to participate in.
That’s why Scalia contrived the individual right unconnected to militia service.
So literally everyone then?As women are now allowed to be in combat, it means any able-bodied person.
Not sure your massive dipshittery deserves intelligent feedback as it would be wasted on you.Doesn't matter in the slightest... but I realize that's as close as you come to intelligent feedback on the remark...
So only people aged 18-54 are eligible to keep and bear arms then?In California ( Per State Constitution ) it’s EVERY adult Male age 18 -54 that is not ( Current Duty Law Enforcement Or Military , Member Of the State Legislature )
Shall not be infringed is simple enough. You can stop your worrying now.I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.