When the Constitution was trashed and how we may never recover.

BidenPresident said:
People in regulated militias should be allowed to have arms, by the technology of the 18 C. Seems obvious what it means.
Click to expand...

Even if true, that does not mean people are limited to those weapons. The Constitution limits what government can do, it does not dictate it. Congress and the state legislatures determine what gun regulations they want.

Nothing prevents them from allowing fully automatic weapons or grenades. Until 2010 states could prohibit firearm ownership.
 
Flash said:
Even if true, that does not mean people are limited to those weapons. The Constitution limits what government can do, it does not dictate it. Congress and the state legislatures determine what gun regulations they want.

Nothing prevents them from allowing fully automatic weapons or grenades. Until 2010 states could prohibit firearm ownership.
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment is totally irrelevant to modern times.
 
BidenPresident said:
The 2nd Amendment is totally irrelevant to modern times.
Click to expand...

But it does guarantee a degree of freedom from those who would try to place too severe restrictions on ownership. Federal and state legislatures can make any updates to modern times.

Does free press limit the press to printing methods available only during colonial times?

Does search and seizure protect us from methods only available during colonial times and not protect us from modern electronic surveillance techniques?

If we are gong to interpret the 2nd amendment based on its meaning in 1789 does that also apply to other rights?
 
Flash said:
But it does guarantee a degree of freedom from those who would try to place too severe restrictions on ownership. Federal and state legislatures can make any updates to modern times.

Does free press limit the press to printing methods available only during colonial times?

Does search and seizure protect us from methods only available during colonial times and not protect us from modern electronic surveillance techniques?

If we are gong to interpret the 2nd amendment based on its meaning in 1789 does that also apply to other rights?
Click to expand...

Guns kill. Newspapers do not.

I do not believe the 2nd Amendment should be in the Constitution.
 
BidenPresident said:
Guns kill. Newspapers do not.

I do not believe the 2nd Amendment should be in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Removing the 2nd does not change federal or state laws. Gun laws would remain essentially the same.

Is the 2nd the only amendment you would interpret based on the 1787 meaning?
 
Flash said:
Removing the 2nd does not change federal or state laws. Gun laws would remain essentially the same.

Is the 2nd the only amendment you would interpret based on the 1787 meaning?
Click to expand...

I made my position clear. The Supreme Court wrongly believes its meaning is, "Anyone can own as many weapons of any kind they want. "
 
BidenPresident said:
I made my position clear. The Supreme Court wrongly believes its meaning is, "Anyone can own as many weapons of any kind they want. "
Click to expand...

No, the Supreme Court never ruled that. It simply said it is a personal right and not limited to militia membership (which essentially does not exist). It acknowledged the right to regulate firearms.

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
 
BidenPresident said:
That's what I said.
Click to expand...

No, you said "The Supreme Court wrongly believes its meaning is, "Anyone can own as many weapons of any kind they want. "


There are many limitations that prevent people from owning as many weapons of any kind they want. If they Supreme Court had actually ruled that those laws would have been struck down.
 
Flash said:
No, you said "The Supreme Court wrongly believes its meaning is, "Anyone can own as many weapons of any kind they want. "


There are many limitations that prevent people from owning as many weapons of any kind they want. If they Supreme Court had actually ruled that those laws would have been struck down.
Click to expand...


I believe the 2nd Amendment is very bad law and should not be in the Constitution.
 
BidenPresident said:
I believe the 2nd Amendment is very bad law and should not be in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Start a campaign to repeal the 2nd. The 27th passed largely because of the efforts of one college student after writing a paper on the topic. The University of Texas recently changed his grade from C to A.
 
Hoosier Daddy said:
yes, there is such a thing as an assault weapon, stupid fuck. and i cannot believe how fucking stupid you are. if the military went full on neanderthal, did not care about collateral damage, any uprising, any armed revolt, would be squashed like a bug on a windshield of a car doing 100 mph...are you nuts?
Click to expand...

I see you failed all your math classes, fucking moron.

40 million vs. 5 million......................the 40 million wins every time.

stupid fucking idiot
 
Flash said:
As a practical matter, it doesn't really matter what the 2nd intended. State and federal gun control laws are not going to be too restrictive or too liberal for most Americans. None are going to allow fully automatic weapons or grenades and none are going to prohibit common pistols or rifles.

Almost any gun control group can accomplish what it wants under current interpretations--it is a political rather than legal issue. Some states already have waiting periods, background checks, restrict or prohibit assault weapons.
Click to expand...

so we're going to be ok with a majority overriding the constitution because it makes them feel safer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top