Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,196
- 2,320
See, thats how i understand it. But people say (probably because of a SC case in the 1800s) that states can regulate guns however they see fit. Using that logic consistently, a state can tell christians to get the fuck out. A state can ban any dissent against the govt. A state can do whatever it wants.Guess you didn't read the article!We wouldnt have the protection anymore. We keep a lot of guns after an amendment and some whacko shoots up another school. The left knee jerks like they always do and we lose even more freedom. Thats pretty logical wouldnt you say? Especially if you consider that anytime something happens with a gun, whatever was used, "should be banned". Look at bumpstocks. 95% of the country didnt even know what they were until vegas. ONE GUY misuses them and all hell breaks loose and the knees start jerking.Repealing the second amendment doesn't necessarily mean the total elimination of firearms. That's faulty logic. I guess that's why Stevens was a SC judge and the OP isn't.
The provision was included in the Bill of Rights, Stevens explained, given national anxieties about the tyrannical potential of a permanent standing army. He pointed to the simultaneous provisions of state constitutions that explicitly establish a right to keep firearms for self-defense, in contrast to the federal Constitution,
which mentions guns only in the context of militias.
Too funny. The question was not formally raised until the 1930s (United States v. Miller), 150 years after ratification, and finally put to rest in 2008, with Stevens writing the dissent.
He's saying "it's up to the states". Isn't that what conservatives have been saying all along?
Only that which is not mandated by the Constitution as under the authority of the federal government is up to the states.
All rights so mandated are individual rights.
I say BULLSHIT.
Bingo.