Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 2nd Amendment Explained

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The 2nd Amendment Explained

    A college professor explains the 2nd Amendment about as plain as anyone I've heard. I don't understand how 4 of our Supreme Court Justices could misinterpret it. Ironically, he's in commiefornia!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqGBOt32NM
    Think Green.......Recycle Congress

    Certified Armed Infidel

    Right Wing Extremist

    #2
    Re: The 2nd Amendment Explained

    Seeing that "the people of a free state" may be called upon to defend the country, it would seem that those in authority wouldn't mind high capacity magazines......unless of course that's who the people are mad at.
    Never give the devil a ride. He will always want to drive.

    Comment


      #3
      Re: The 2nd Amendment Explained

      It's not a matter of "misinterpretation" on the part of the 4 dissenting Justices in the Heller Vs. DC case. Those Justices are smart enough to know that the founders fully intended the 2nd A. to safeguard the right of citizens to own and carry firearms. (The God-given right of every person to self-defense.)

      They simply disagree with the founders and the Constitution itself and are abusing their office as Justices to achieve the changes they want to see in our nation. There is no believable historical argument that the founders intended this right to apply only to standing armies or state militias.

      We the people have the right to form a militia for our own defense. "Well-regulated" means that the militia is not a mob, has a command structure and can be held responsible for its actions in a court of law.

      Comment


        #4
        Re: The 2nd Amendment Explained

        Originally posted by gun sane View Post
        Seeing that "the people of a free state" may be called upon to defend the country, it would seem that those in authority wouldn't mind high capacity magazines......unless of course that's who the people are mad at.

        In all seriousness, our nation would be more secure and there would be less crime overall if we had less gun control law, not more. Technically, citizens can still own certain kinds of weapons that are "regulated" under the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968. But the requirements for such ownership and possession in these laws are pretty much the textbook definition of "infringement" as in "shall not be infringed"! But our legislators and courts have been intellectually dishonest in interpreting "shall not be infringed" in regard to the 2nd Ammendment.

        Imagine a required federal permit or a "tax stamp" to be able to "speak your mind".

        Imagine a required federal background check in order to go the the church of your choice.

        Imagine a federal limit on the horsepower of the engine in your vehicle. Or, a federal limit on the number of acres you can own, or a limit on the square footage of your house.

        Would you call such infringements of our liberties--"common sense limitations"????

        Comment


          #5
          Re: The 2nd Amendment Explained

          This is good news in IL. But I doubt it will go very far unless the Gun Organizations in IL get behind it.
          http://www.bnd.com/news/local/article134744919.html
          TO BE UNARMED IS TO BE A VICTIM

          Comment


            #6
            Re: The 2nd Amendment Explained

            The 4th Circus recently upheld Marylands definitions of "assault weapons" based on idiotic and moronic cosmetic differences in weapon A vs B. One is just as deadly as another. Also, one could only hope that they would get in a real fire-fight and find out who in reality would affected by their idiotic limiting magazine capacities.

            Comment


              #7
              Re: The 2nd Amendment Explained

              Originally posted by FakeBersaName View Post
              It's not a matter of "misinterpretation" on the part of the 4 dissenting Justices in the Heller Vs. DC case. Those Justices are smart enough to know that the founders fully intended the 2nd A. to safeguard the right of citizens to own and carry firearms. (The God-given right of every person to self-defense.)

              They simply disagree with the founders and the Constitution itself and are abusing their office as Justices to achieve the changes they want to see in our nation. There is no believable historical argument that the founders intended this right to apply only to standing armies or state militias.

              We the people have the right to form a militia for our own defense. "Well-regulated" means that the militia is not a mob, has a command structure and can be held responsible for its actions in a court of law.
              Yeah, that is exactly how it is. These judges are not stupid, but the problem is, they think we are.

              Comment

              Working...
              X