Posted on 11/28/2014 4:27:47 PM PST by Mean Daddy
Does the First Amendment only apply in your own home too?
yes, only in your own home is not there.
people wore their arms with them, at home, or when travelling, when that amendment was written. i think that clearly provides proper context. the right to self defense follows wherever the self is at the moment.
if it didn’t we would not be able to transport arms anywhere, or defend ourselves if we were attacked outside our home.
i think we just have to be clear that anytime this shit occurs, we must point out every time, repeatedly, only statists like socialists would adopt such a view, b/c our founders sure didn’t. the amendments were to secure personal liberites, not restrict them. socialists read laws and constitutions looking to restrict citizens rights. the founders created the costitution and the bill of rights to prevent government taking away citizens’ rights.
every case we argue in front of scotus should point out this fact at the very start.
Not a chance she will win if the court is staffed with “Hav..ahd” law school intellectual whores.
Actually, if the courts interpreted the Second Amendment as only covering weapons commonly used by militias, we'd all be able to own full-automatic rifles, grenade launchers, mortars, and ammunition for the same and a whole lot of other heavier weapons than current law allows, to say nothing of the laws covering "destructive devices" (IEDs) being voided. (Consider what militias in the Middle East are armed with.)
Dems: The homeless should not be able to defend themselves.
“Caetano, who is homeless, never had to use it but now finds herself at the center of a contentious Second Amendment case headed to the highest court in Massachusetts.”
Our Founders dragged Tory judges into the street, stripped them naked and tarred and feathered them.
2A intent would allow for the existance of a 322nd A-10 Tankbuster Oathkeeper Airwing.
it will be interesting to watch “progressive” judges argue that homeless people do not have Constitutional rights.
But, is she her own property. Or is her life, her liberty and her pursuit of happiness her own property? But really, isn’t that stun gun her property even if she can’t plug it in?
This is a shockingly stupid legal question that no one should need to ask, so it’s no surprise that Massachusetts is on the wrong side of the issue. The right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”. That means it’s not limited to home owners. It’s not limited to hunting. It’s not limited to military weapons. It includes stun guns for the homeless. Our God-given right to defend ourselves is an absolute.
A homeless woman needs to armed more then anyone.
Yes, probably so.
And, can you vote if you don’t own property?
Property owners are often subjected to tax increases voted by rent-paying non-owners.
Obviously a homeless person has a right to defend themselves.
I used to tell folks that I lived wherever I happened to be at the moment. Home was a place I went to when I was done living out in the public arena for the day.
A stun gun is not a firearm.
I have one I carry with me when I go walking, for dogs. These dogs dont scare me as far as biting me, but I am afraid one might get run over by trying to follow me so when they come to the road, I turn my stun gun on and crack the trigger. It makes a cracking electrical sound that scares them back to the house.
Great tag line!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.