Second Amendment - incorrectly interpreted.

countryboy said:
I doubt they wanted criminals to have guns at all.

Based on what exactly? Be specific.

The word "abridged" doesn't appear in the Second Amendment.

Where does it say anything even remotely related to this fiction? You are just making shit up.
Click to expand...
It's after seeing threads like this I reinforce my opinion that Jarod is no attorney. Which of course makes him a lying piece of shit. Which makes sense it's way more in line with his postings.
 
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...
violent criminals are banned from owning guns
 
ULTRA MAGA said:
It's after seeing threads like this I reinforce my opinion that Jarod is no attorney. Which of course makes him a lying piece of shit. Which makes sense it's way more in line with his postings.
Click to expand...
Fake attorneys on internet forms are a dime a dozen. Or, 10 cents for 12.
 
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...
I'm always amused by libtards that have no idea what they're talking about trying to act like they do know. A wise man knows that he know nothing. Quiz, who was first to make that observation, I only ask because some moron will accuse me of stealing it, I did.? The point is Jarod the subway man, should be ok with admitting he knows jack shit about guns, we'll understand, it's alright.

I guess........what the hell, can you explain what a 'simi' gun is? LOL it's cool if you use AI to help, you'll at least learn something, maybe.
Oh, yeah your 'observation' is shit as well. It would be fun to hear your reasoning behind that brilliant interpretation of one of the simplest and most straightforward of Amendments. First go learn about 'Simi's'
 
Tobytone said:
I'm always amused by libtards that have no idea what they're talking about trying to act like they do know. A wise man knows that he know nothing. Quiz, who was first to make that observation, I only ask because some moron will accuse me of stealing it, I did.? The point is Jarod the subway man, should be ok with admitting he knows jack shit about guns, we'll understand, it's alright.

I guess........what the hell, can you explain what a 'simi' gun is? LOL it's cool if you use AI to help, you'll at least learn something, maybe.
Oh, yeah your 'observation' is shit as well. It would be fun to hear your reasoning behind that brilliant interpretation of one of the simplest and most straightforward of Amendments. First go learn about 'Simi's'
Click to expand...
It is a big truck :dunno: He can't spell.
 
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...
Clearly what the founders intended was for the general citizenry to be armed with military grade weapons so they could become a militia military force when needed. Thus, the easiest way to meet that is for the government to issue every able bodied, adult, citizen who is in good standing (eg., not a criminal or convict) a fully automatic rifle and ammunition or allow persons to privately purchase the same for use in their role as part of the militia.

This is how Switzerland handles their similar laws on the citizenry keeping and bearing arms. In fact, there they have government sanctioned shooting clubs and annual and semi-annual events where citizens can bring their military grade weapons to a range for practice and competition with the government providing free ammunition.

If wealthy citizens want to provide heavier military grade weapons as part of their militia inclusion, that's great too!

bss-spr21_053.jpg

Some law abiding citizens out for the day shooting their cannons that Joe Biden tried to tell us they couldn't own...
 
You see how pretending the Constitution says what you want it to say can cause a huge mess? Trumppers should see what they are doing with the 14th is going to erode the Constitution!
 
Jarod said:
You see how pretending the Constitution says what you want it to say can cause a huge mess? Trumppers should see what they are doing with the 14th is going to erode the Constitution!
Click to expand...
No, it will reestablish the supremacy of the Constitution that the Democrats attacked when the vegetable was in office.
 
Jarod said:
You see how pretending the Constitution says what you want it to say can cause a huge mess? Trumppers should see what they are doing with the 14th is going to erode the Constitution!
Click to expand...
Constitution says NOTHING about the right to marry or abortion

But you think both are rights
 
Jarod said:
It does say all Americans deserve equal protection on the law.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to marry.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court suggested that discrimination against gays and lesbians can violate the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply, leaving this question for another day.

It "can" not it does. It was a 5-4 decision. The Court is again 5-4 but conservative now.

This will be decided at the Supreme Court.

You thought that Roe vs Wade was written in stone but it wasn't.
 
Earl said:
There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to marry.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court suggested that discrimination against gays and lesbians can violate the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply, leaving this question for another day.

It "can" not it does.

This will be decided at the Supreme Court.

You thought that Roe vs Wade was written in stone but it wasn't.
Click to expand...
R v. W, was chipped away at for 50 years. I knew it was fragile.

I still believe in the right to privacy from government intrusion in my life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top