Posted on 02/05/2024 12:02:45 PM PST by DallasBiff
Historians have found themselves caught in the middle of America's debate over gun control ever since the Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that firearms laws must be consistent with American "tradition."
That decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen set off a new wave of challenges to state and federal restrictions on guns.
"What's happening now is a fight over what the Second Amendment ultimately means," says Chuck Michel, president and general counsel at the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which is suing the state over newly passed limits on concealed firearms. "This truly is a historic time for Second Amendment jurisprudence."
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
It is a natural right. Either provided by natural law (survival of the fittest, etc.) or as I believe (and many of the Founding Fathers, and others way before them) bestowed by our Creator.
1790 Sheridan`s Dictionary: “To Infringe, to violate, to break laws or contracts; to destroy, to hinder
“To hinder, to obstruct, to stop, to impede”
That “guy” looks like a professional eggplant polisher.
“The right to bare Taylor Smith shall not be infringed?”
well there are a lot of bare taylor smith pictures, or so I have heard.
and our congress critters are trying to criminalize them according to what I hear on the radio.
“It is a natural right. “
True as that is, it doesn’t define “right”.
“1790 Sheridan`s Dictionary: “
All of that will do for “infringe”, but it doesn’t define “right”. Look again.
And with the upcoming events more and more people are arming themselves. I just came from the nearby Walmart where I bought some 7.62x51. The checkout lady said for the first time in her life she wants to buy a gun. She’s afraid of what’s about to happen and that a cop told her to get self defense oriented. She appears to be close to 50 and the last time she shot a gun was a 22 when she was a kid.
There will be a surge in sales soon, and the those trying to subvert the 2A will be too late. I suspect more and more non-shooters will be arming themselves.
Libtards die hard.
Taylor Swift disagrees, even when the bare is imitation AI, not real.
The Constitution generally regulates “behavior” (the shall and shall nots). It does not generally regulate implementations. One could conclude that as long as the behavior were lawful (Constitutional) then the tools used to protect the lawful behavior are protected.
The anti-gun crowd like to cite mass shootings or “gun violence” statistics (which regularly include suicides) as a basis for regulation or confiscation. In the common law, in courts of equity, the maxim emerged … ”Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia.” [A conclusion about the use of a thing from its abuse is invalid.]
… or whatever.
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.