I know the history of the Second Amendment. The right is invested in the people for a specific purpose. Period. It says so right there in the text. You can only deny that by ignoring that entire first clause. There is not one word in the amendment about personal defense. You can belong to and train with the National Guard. Your right to keep and bear arms is tied to your membership and attendance. Don't want to join, you can't own any semi-automatic weapons of any kind.
I’ve always wondered about this language.
Gothca, never heard of that caliber. I just purchased some .177 bbs to plink away at some beach rats the neighbor brought over after feeding the damn squirrels peanuts and thought they were the same thing.
It IS tied to the militia. Specifically and unequivocably. In order to form a militia, the people must be armed. If they refuse to join the militia, they have no rights under the Second Amendment since it exists SPECIFICALLY for that purpose. It says so.
Don't like the Constitution? The founders provided 2 separate methods to amend it. Neither of those give Congress the right to legislate in defiance of it, though they try a lot.
Lots of bad comparisons because the laws against those things are laws against specific acts.
FFS - registration and use are two separate things.
Here's your quote:
It's not about preventing it's about curbing these mass shootings and making it harder for people to carry out these heinous acts. JFC why even have laws, restrictions on anything based on your idiotic "it won't prevent it from happening" dipshittery?
Oh for ****'s sake! If you want to ignore every Supreme Court case ever, I'm sure you're right.
The f’n Supreme Court ignores the Supreme Court. Find another tack or explain how the language of the Second doesn’t say exactly what it clearly says. For ****’s sake!!
I’ve asked that question innumerable times. An answer today would be a first. Deep thinkers these folks are not.
It does say exactly what it clearly says and it has been explained quite clearly. The people's right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed. That is the problem we need to fix.
Sounds like when my friends and I played Golden Eye and did Golden Gun - basement. I like the idea.
It would never pass the sniff test before a higher-level court.
I prefer the shotgun for upland game. I’d put myself up against you as far as masculinity, and in agree that you don’t need to hunt or be a construction worker to be a man.
The funny thing is that the concept that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right own guns is a fairly recent interpretation. For centuries local laws and restrictions were allowed. It wasn't until the 1970s that this concept started to emerge and wasn't codified until the 2000s.
I’m confident, and when someone bashes men for hunting with guns, it makes me smile a bit
