Posted on 02/26/2018 6:04:05 AM PST by Kaslin
Excellent
Anybody who thinks that GVRO are a good idea has never experienced TRO as used in divorce courts.
the fourteenth amendment allows us to boot out those rebelling against the constitution, and those calling for the confiscation of any gun, is in rebellion of the constitution, so lets boot the lot of the left.
The 2nd amendment isn’t about stars rights. Its about individual freedom and inalienable rights. This guy is an idiot.
I predict an explosion of GVROs in liberal states. Confiscations will be virtually automatic.
Especially the sentences I quoted.
You're off your rocker, sir.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State" is a subordinate clause, intended to provide a reason—a reason, and not necessarily the only reason, but because a single reason suffices—for individual citizens to bear military type arms. The clause "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (extraneous and irrelevant comma omitted) is the main or operative clause.
The right to keep and bear arms trivially includes the right to other weapons suitable for individual self defense and hunting—such as pistols and shotguns.
And the use of the word "People" invariably stands for the right of Individuals, just as it is used in other amendments of the Bill of Rights, such as the First and Fourth.
There is simply no debate that the Second Amendment recognizes—not grants, but recognizes—an individual right to keep and bear arms, including and esepecially those long-arms suitable for your average foot soldier.
This interpretation is consistent with the original historical discussions regarding the Second Amendment, Militia, and right to keep and bear arms. It has also been confirmed by Supreme Court decisions in recent years. Only the most gross distortion by Leftists, Authoritarians, and their ilk can concoct the absurd interpretations which conform to what you have suggested.
You registered today to post such ignorance? I would suggest that you conduct a modicum of research before you wade into a fully informed conservative community and post such patently uninformed content about Unalienable Rights...
I agree.
Replace it with one that clearly states that “These rights are ABSOLUTE and shall NOT be infringed by ANYBODY!”
Exactly! That's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and it's needed now more than ever.
You need to search the US Code, Title 10, for "Militia: Composition and Classes".
Who the frak even writes sh** like this, like WTF?
I agree.
“It is amazing that people get paid to be this stupid.”
He is certainly getting paid, but he is not stupid.
He is a member of the Democrat Ministry of Propaganda who wants to make tyranny safe for his masters.
IMHO
“It is amazing that people get paid to be this stupid.”
He is certainly getting paid, but he is not stupid.
He is a member of the Democrat Ministry of Propaganda who wants to make tyranny safe for his masters.
IMHO
As you suggest, I can certainly agree that if not stupid, he is evil to the core.
Hence it’s a dumb idea.
So, because there is a threat that 5 liberal justices may decide to “reinterpret” the Constitution in a way that takes away gun rights, we should just give up? What about the 1st Amendment? Or any other? Sorry, but the Constitution doesn’t become moot just because 5 justices say it is. It takes an amendment to make changes to it. While majority of justices have had the gall (and got away with it) to invent new rights, so far they have not dared to take away rights listed in the Constitution. If they attempt to do so, it might be the start of a Civil War if these justices are not impeached.
For a year or so now, ANY and all ideas related to the Second Amendment are stupid or stupider than ever...
Completely irrelevant and useless thread...
THREAD REJECTED! unread...
That sounds rational if, and only if, you believe that the Bill of Rights can be Amended.
Although it doesn't matter, I happen to disagree, based on the fact that there is no provision to do so, AND that the Federal Papers, as well as the Constitutional debates themselves, unequivocally considered the Bill of Rights as a statement, not a law addressing enumerated powers, and subject to Amendment.
In before the motherf*ckin zot.
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.