The Bill of Rights is NOT negotiable.

[Concart]

H E L L E R

I love quoting Heller to them without them knowing what it is. They cry that some liberal democrat must have written it. Gets them every single time.

[SmarterthanYou]

In other words, ‘infringed’, motherfucker. Comprendè?

in other words, you understand completely that 'shall not be infringed' means 'shall not be infringed', but the courts have decided against the constitution and you are ok with that, making you anti freedom...............understood

[domer76]

I love quoting Heller to them without them knowing what it is. They cry that some liberal democrat must have written it. Gets them every single time.

Even when it’s spelled out for them, they still fail to grasp that ruling.

[SmarterthanYou]

I love quoting Heller to them without them knowing what it is. They cry that some liberal democrat must have written it. Gets them every single time.

then there are those of us who KNEW Scalia was a pro government fuckstick to begin with................but that would also mean you know what freedom means.............

[Concart]

Even when it’s spelled out for them, they still fail to grasp that ruling.

Yep. I actually support Heller. It cleared the way, explicitly, for banning certain types of weapons. They ignore it.

[reagansghost]

the 2d Amendment states citizens have the right to join a well-regulated militia and therefore bear arms, doesn't say anything about random militias regulating themselves. In other words the amendment doesn't say that ordinary citizens, who are not part of the state's well-regulated militia, have a right to bear arms.

that phrase "well-regulation militia" always trips the gun freaks up, can't get by that one

[SmarterthanYou]

the 2d Amendment states citizens have the right to join a well-regulated militia and therefore bear arms, doesn't say anything about random militias regulating themselves. In other words the amendment doesn't say that ordinary citizens, who are not part of the state's well-regulated militia, have a right to bear arms.

that phrase "well-regulation militia" always trips the gun freaks up, can't get by that one

that is NOT what it says.........the ridiculous part about this is that YOU KNOW this doesn't do that.......but can't help yourself because you're afraid of guns

[reagansghost]

that is NOT what it says.........the ridiculous part about this is that YOU KNOW this doesn't do that.......but can't help yourself because you're afraid of guns

then explain why the amendment references a well-regulated militia?

go

[evince]

Sorry Joe you demented sod.
The 2nd Ammendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

What is it you don't understand about "Shall not be infringed"?

You don’t get to define the constitution


That for the justice system and the SCOTUS

[evince]

Richard Heller challenged the District's law banning virtually all handguns on Second Amendment grounds. The Court agreed with Heller, finding the ban unconstitutional and holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep suitable weapons at home for self-defense unconnected to militia service.

My 9 mm is a semi automatic handgun, are you for banning it?

In red

[SmarterthanYou]

then explain why the amendment references a well-regulated militia?

go

the framers had just won a war against a government that tried to 'regulate' their arms.....
the framers used several definitions for 'well regulated', as evidence by numerous dictionaries
at the time that the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified, 'well regulated' meant something OTHER than government regulated.
The framers were concerned about a central government and their standing army denying each state their autonomy.....thus they were adamant about states keeping the people armed to prevent that
statists, such as yourself, like to lie about the 2nd Amendment saying it was about a states right to have a government regulated national guard, but fail to take in to account Art. 1, Sec 10, paragraph 3........to whit

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

so, in light of the NUMEROUS historical pieces of evidence that have been presented to this forum that the 2nd Amendment does NOT refer to government regulated forces, it's OBVIOUS that the 2nd Amendment was written to prohibit the new federal government from infringing on the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms......

deny it,

go

[SmarterthanYou]

You don’t get to define the constitution
That for the justice system and the SCOTUS

STFU you moronic slut...you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about

[reagansghost]

the framers had just won a war against a government that tried to 'regulate' their arms.....
the framers used several definitions for 'well regulated', as evidence by numerous dictionaries
at the time that the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified, 'well regulated' meant something OTHER than government regulated......

no need to go further than your first few ridiculous comments
l
the government that had just tried to regulate their arms was a FOREIGN government, a fact you brush aside like there was no Revolutionary War. That's the context no matter how much you twist and turn

and where in the hell does the amendment even infer these militias are intended to address the United States' government, and not foreign governments? That make zero sense.......was that a civil war or a revolutionary war against a foreign power?.........you're not making any sense

[SmarterthanYou]

no need to go further than your first few ridiculous comments
l
the government that had just tried to regulate their arms was a FOREIGN government, a fact you brush aside like there was no Revolutionary War. That's the context no matter how much you twist and turn

this is why you are considered a moron. That government was NOT a foreign government. The 'colonies' were at that time still BRITISH, you ignorant moron............

and where in the hell does the amendment even infer these militias are intended to address the United States' government, and not foreign governments? That make zero sense.......was that a civil war or a revolutionary war against a foreign power?.........you're not making any sense

you've obviously never done anything but listen to your anti gun democrat handlers, because had you read any of the historical documents from the framers, you'd know

[reagansghost]

this is why you are considered a moron. That government was NOT a foreign government. The 'colonies' were at that time still BRITISH, you ignorant moron............

wait, British rule didn't exist over the Americans of the day? Or was Britain on this side of the Atlantic in those days?

wtf are you talking about?