Second Amendment - incorrectly interpreted.

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
Clearly the Founders did not intend for violent criminals to have access to the type of rifles available today.

"Arms" do not include simi or fully automatic rifles.
"Abridged" does not mean you cant shorten or limit, it just means Abridged in the sense of early English standards.

It does not include individual home ownership, but what can be locked in an armory.
 
Jarod said:
Clearly the Founders did not intend for violent criminals to have access to the type of rifles available today.

"Arms" do not include simi or fully automatic rifles.
"Abridged" does not mean you cant shorten or limit, it just means Abridged in the sense of early English standards.

It does not include individual home ownership, but what can be locked in an armory.
Click to expand...
Say who? You? A receptionist.
 
Jarod said:
Clearly the Founders did not intend for violent criminals to have access to the type of rifles available today.

"Arms" do not include simi or fully automatic rifles.
"Abridged" does not mean you cant shorten or limit, it just means Abridged in the sense of early English standards.

It does not include individual home ownership, but what can be locked in an armory.
Click to expand...
Waste of time, all you are going to get is regurgitated NRA “arguements”

If little kids being slaughtered by a semi automatic weapon in Sandy Hook and over five hundred being shot in Vegas didn’t changes what they want to believe no argument ever is going to

They just don’t want to accept the fact that rights aren’t absolute, and that rights are based on reason, not desire
 
Jarod said:
Its as valid as the Felon's argument regarding Birthright Citizenship.
Click to expand...
The SC has not adjuducated Birthright Citizenship yet.

We shall see.

This settled gun ownership:


District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts​

1739299342419.png
Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › event › District-of-Columb...




Dec 17, 2024 — Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess ...
 
Jarod said:
Clearly the Founders did not intend for violent criminals to have access to the type of rifles available today.

"Arms" do not include simi or fully automatic rifles.
"Abridged" does not mean you cant shorten or limit, it just means Abridged in the sense of early English standards.

It does not include individual home ownership, but what can be locked in an armory.
Click to expand...
Bored again?

How about you blow it out your ass and take it up with your local mayor and have him/her/alphabet run it up the flagpole for the 1200th time.
 
Lionfish said:
Bored again?

How about you blow it out your ass and take it up with your local mayor and have him/her/alphabet run it up the flagpole for the 1200th time.
Click to expand...
Quick change the subject or The Felon will be exposed yet again.
 
Earl said:
The SC has not adjuducated Birthright Citizenship yet.

We shall see.

This settled gun ownership:

District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts​

View attachment 43280
Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › event › District-of-Columb...




Dec 17, 2024 — Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess ...
Click to expand...
Wrong, if you ever took to actually read the majority opinion, the primary sources, it offers parameters and isn’t intended to be absolute. As Scalia put it as the author, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
 
Jarod said:
Clearly the Founders did not intend for violent criminals to have access to the type of rifles available today.

"Arms" do not include simi or fully automatic rifles.
"Abridged" does not mean you cant shorten or limit, it just means Abridged in the sense of early English standards.

It does not include individual home ownership, but what can be locked in an armory.
Click to expand...
you're spewing left wing gun hating talking points. You either truly don't know or understand what the founders intended or you're just plain ignorant about what they intended.

'arms' is exactly that.....any and all types of weapons

'abridged' is nowhere in the 2nd Amendments text.

all of the historical documentation refers to privately owned weapons or that the government has no power or authority over the private weapons of the people.

you really should stop trying to change history. you're very bad at it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you're spewing left wing gun hating talking points. You either truly don't know or understand what the founders intended or you're just plain ignorant about what they intended.

'arms' is exactly that.....any and all types of weapons

'abridged' is nowhere in the 2nd Amendments text.

all of the historical documentation refers to privately owned weapons or that the government has no power or authority over the private weapons of the people.

you really should stop trying to change history. you're very bad at it.
Click to expand...
And the framers of the 14th's CLEARLY intended for Jurisdiction to grant citizenship to those born in the United States.
 
archives said:
Wrong, if you ever took to actually read the majority opinion, the primary sources, it offers parameters and isn’t intended to be absolute. As Scalia put it as the author, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Click to expand...
the desire for authoritarianism is strong in you.

the bottom line is that the founders created a restricted federal government with limited powers to provide the minimum amount of governing necessary to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. NOWHERE did the founders every believe, or decide, that the federal government gets to define the limits of it's own powers prescribed to them. By adhering to the federal government telling you it can define and redefine the limits of it's prescribed powers, you are destroying the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top