There's no expiration date on the 2A, sorry to disappoint. I possess the right to defend myself with firearms for my entire life against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic. Suck on that.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
You don’t. You have a constitutional right to own arms as a part of a well-regulated militia. Which you aren’t.
The Democrat party is managing to become both a foreign and domestic enemy of free people
Better yet... why dont the AFRICAN-American players protest by playing for their AFRICAN country of heritage?
Don't like the US? Fine... GTFO and play for Nigeria (or whatever nation you "claim").
The internet isn't mentioned in the Constitution, so the 1A doesn't apply. TV and radio either.
Hence the precise reason for a well regulated Militia. Thanks for proving my point that they are actually needed more than ever.
I am ex military security and own legal weapons. Are you saying they might nuke my house to get me or my weapons? Seems a bit expensive to get little old me.
the Tri Lambs didn't require voter ID
Regardless of if healthcare was socialized or not, I'm fairly certain they would require an ID to get the service. You know, so the gubment can keep track of all your heath records and whatnot.
Sure I do, and I am a well regulated militia of one. Why do I have to prove who I am to purchase a firearm, which is a constitutional right to be able to defend myself and home?
Tell that to the Vietnamese or the Afghans. Smh
Neither are AR15s. By that logic you don’t get any gun made after 1789. Wrong talking point.
No, it's the PRECISE talking point. You are just too dense to understand how you just self owned.
FDA isn't saying they won't approve them because they have known issues; i.e., rejecting them. It's because they don't have enough + data yet.
You don't define long-term. Twenty years? If that, then we'd never get a drug approved. I think a year+ is pretty long-term.
I’m saying if they decide to your gun cabinet isn’t going to keep them from it. The American military will not be deployed against its own people. But if it were no amount of 2nd Amendment rights would deter it.
Your statement is rife with implied threats. Are you in favor of the government using military force on its own citizens?
That's not what the 2nd Amendment says. Your misquotes aren't legally binding, they are just an epic fail.
Actually there is a need because this place is far from secure. See southern border. See cities. See repeated attacks on Fed buildings.
So if they decide to, and will not use the military, they will go door to door with F-15's and nukes to disarm me and the millions of people like me? That's a lot of nukes. Or are they going to hire a special police force to go door to door? Maybe that's what Nancy has in mind with her capital police expansion.
Sorry champ, there is case law stating that you're wrong. See Heller.
It isn't a qualifier. There is CASE LAW that states this. You're wrong, SPECTACULARLY SO.
PlatinDumb/Dion running around misquoting the 2A and claiming his opinion is fact. LOL
Here's the pertinent quote from Scalia, who wrote the SUPREME COURT'S OPINION in HELLER:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4
www.law.cornell.edu
Suck on that, Dion.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Suck on that, Dion.
We occupied their countries with a goal of protecting the populace and minimizing human casualties. If we ever got to the point where the American military was being deployed against the American people the goal would be obliteration, not occupation.
So in your explanation you think the Military would "obliterate" its citizens, and you also think we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves? Sounds like you're making an argument for the 2A.
So Covid has morphed into a white privledge pandemic?
That’s exactly what I said. We don’t have a ton of data and the FDA won’t approve them.
We’re on about month 7 of mainstream introduction of the vaccine. Definitely still in short term.
Twenty years is a straw man. The 'vax' didn't even get 20 weeks.
It was a 5-4 decision in 2008. It's currently precedent. I disagree with the ruling. But good to know split Supreme Court decisions are actually settled issues. Weight off my mind to know y'all will never mention abortion again. Or transgender bathrooms. Or "religious freedom".Here's the pertinent quote from Scalia, who wrote the SUPREME COURT'S OPINION in HELLER:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Suck on that, Dion.
That's some scary stuff right there. It's one thing to walk along land with a group of people to try and get into the US. It's another to tie together a bunch of junk and float your way here. A whole lot more can go wrong than can go right. They have bad weather, go off course, or the "raft" falls apart and they either drown, starve/dehydrate, or get eaten by sharks. They are putting their lives on the line to escape communism.
Not shouldn't, wouldn't. Doesn't matter which Armalite variant you're shooting at a tank. It won't stop it. There are many legitimate reasons for owning firearms. Defending yourself from a tyrannical government isn't one of them sadly.
Thought I'd take time to say you're an idiot. Bye!
Some of the ones that do watch are doing it to catch the next big Biden screw up.
Sounds like he's speaking about @Dionysus444
I did a google search. On average a nuke cost 1.8 million dollars in 2015. With Bitem's inflation, no telling what it is today. They are sure going to spend a lot of $ to come after our guns with nukes as someone suggested earlier. Besides that wouldn't be very eco friendly. AOC wouldn't like that.
False.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There is a comma after "A well regulated Militia" meaning another statement on another group aka the people as well. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, Shall not be infringed.
And yes, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state against a tyrannical government such as the one we have today.
Now do an about face and get out of here.
Of course. Cause you know healthcare is racist.
LOL what a maroon. That's PRECISELY the reason the 2A was implemented. You've obviously never read anything in your life other than DKos.
Similar threads
