Posted on 07/06/2018 12:43:22 PM PDT by Simon Green
“If the Second Amendment had only been more clear about keeping and bearing arms, then all this confusion could be avoided. Darn it. “
—
The Framers could not have imagined in their wildest dreams a jam-packed airport,stadium,or mall.
.
Hm...I wouldn’t interpret it that way. In the context of the article, the Left CLEARLY views Hardiman as a right wing extremist who would striked down challenges to the 2nd Amendment, thus supporting it.
At least, that is how I read it.
The only hope residents of California, New York and New Jersey (and others) have is SCOTUS relief. Their states are killing their 2A rights.
The confirmation trials will be epic. Expect riots, bombings, and attacks.
Remember, the left thought that there was no going back, but even Sotamyer has not been on their side the whole time.
“Shall not” has one of the strongest legal standings and directness in all of law. It’s always been clear to me and thus I need to explanation of it’s meaning from any state.
A 2nd Amendment extremist? I guess it all depends on how one defines “shall not be infringed”.
“He believes the government has very little leeway in regulating guns. He thinks the only types of gun-control laws that are constitutionally permissible are ones that existed at the founding,” said Winkler, author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.”
It is hard to think of a better endorsement than this.
Well, many of us who need to jump through the hoops still do so. It takes time and costs money. But it's a Constitutional right.(It was recently demonstrated to be much easier for a Blood member who was released from prison for murder early to buy a gun than it is for legal owners.)
What are they afraid of? That non-felon, non-criminal minority citizens will find it easier and cheaper buy guns? How is that a bad thing?
The Framers could not have imagined in their wildest dreams a jam-packed airport,stadium,or mall.
Private cannon were legal. They could create as much havoc in a crowd as an AR15. Grenades and bombs were well known.
The only thing more “extreme” would be wording that would require Congress to require that everyone own and carry arms.
What are they afraid of? That non-felon, non-criminal minority citizens will find it easier and cheaper buy guns? How is that a bad thing?
It is a bad thing for them, because they worship the State and demand it have unlimited power. The Second Amendment is a clear and obvious limit on government power.
They hate it with a passion.
They also hate it because many have *chosen* to be unarmed. They want to make sure *everyone else* must be unarmed, so they never have to learn to use arms. (yes, they are that ignorant)
That might make everyone a helluva lot more polite. ;-D
I’m guessing King Street in Boston was pretty crowded when that snowball fight broke out.
In picking his Supreme Court nominee, Donald Trump has a choice of which issue he wants the Democrats’ heads to explode over.
If he chooses Thomas Hardiman, champion of the 2nd Amendment, the Democrats will slander every gun owner in America as a murderous threat to civilization, thereby energizing them to vote for Republicans in November by the tens of millions.
And if he chooses Amy Coney Barrett, a pro-life Catholic, the Democrats will slander the Catholic religion and every American who believes life is sacred, thereby energizing THEM to vote for Republicans in November in the tens of millions.
Decisions, decisions.
The leftist fantasy that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the military, because of the mention of a well-regulated militia, is absurd since after that brief preamble the amendment confers the right to keep and bear arms (which “shall not be infringed”) upon “the People.” While there have been recent hair-splitting legal exercises, such as in the Heller case, oriented toward determing who “the People” refers to throughout the Constitution, in no case does it refer to the government, or only the military. That would be absurd on its face.
Heller
stare decisis
Si
Mr. Wanker, what do the words "shall not be infringed" mean?
It’s clear from the loaded writing in this Washington Post piece that the author, Emma Brown, hates the very idea of ‘civil rights’.
Emma Brown evidently considers civil rights advocates to be ‘extremists’.
What a sad state of affairs. She should work to educate herself and learn some ‘adult’ critical thinking skills before she writes another embarrassing screed like this one.
Thank you. Something new every day.
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.