Argument is a spectator's sport. Its not for you or me. No one is derailing the topic. I'm literally responding to you, you ignore it and then pretend I didn't respond. That level of 'debate' violates forum rules and you know it. You do, which is why discussing the 2a is important.
This thread is NOT about gun control. It's not even about what, in your mind, I want to "institute" (how did you know I have the power to "institute" anything I want in this country?). It's about grammar! And yes, I will most definitely ignore off-topic responses (unless I can think of something to make fun of them) Since you ran out of arguments to rebut THE TOPIC of this thread. And this post doesn't raise my "comedic bone", I guess my job is done... Thanks for playing...
Sanford Levinson-Yale Law JD-professor at Texas, was one of the first liberals to start attacking the bullshit collective rights nonsense that was created by Democrat judges to allow racist gun control laws directed at blacks and the pandering FDR engaged in because of the government created gang wars during Prohibition
translation-you are making unfounded opinions substituting as facts, and then you get upset when your unfounded opinions are attacked as being counter to reality.
Then go start your own thread about FDR and Democrat judges instead of continually trying to derail this one.
I don't see a moderator label by your handle. You all are mad that your silly arguments are constantly destroyed, You aren't even the one who created this inane thread. are you speaking as his agent?
Sure it is. Not really. The Founding Fathers could have chosen to have a standing army instead, if they had wanted to do so. I'll accept that militias were necessary in England 1000 years ago. But "the state of society in England 1000 years ago" is not the same as "the state of society in the US when the Bill of Rights was adopted". That is incorrect. When the law requires that the government do something, it becomes necessary for the government to do that something. That is incorrect. "Neglect of the militia by the federal government" was a real fear.
That is an accurate description of the three leftist justices on the Supreme Court. It does not accurately describe the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. That is incorrect. That is not what the amendment itself says. Note that "whether we need guns or not" has zero relevance given our right to have them. That is incorrect. Historians and the text of the Second Amendment contradict your claim. That is incorrect. Freedom will never be irrelevant in America. That is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms is addressed by the Second Amendment.
That is incorrect. The right to bear arms is about bearing them in the militia, not about bearing them in a standing army. Nothing has been made up. Free people have had an individual right to own weapons for thousands of years now. The only thing that Scalia did wrong in Heller was to not say that people have the right to own grenades, bazookas, and full auto weapons. But Scalia was erring in YOUR favor when he did so. Unless you are saying that you agree with my preference that such weapons be available to the general populace??
That is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms has always been an individual right. That only means that everyone has the right to have military weapons, and the right to keep and bear arms is not restricted to hunting weapons. Reality is hardly anachronistic. The right to keep and bear arms has always applied to individuals. Sure it does. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, and that is an individual right. He is not misinterpreting anything. The language of the Second Amendment fully supports his position.
Which of the legislative powers enumerated in 1:8 would permit a law infringing the individual's right to keep and bear arms?
*******nit. The general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause don't DO anything. They are not a grant of a power. Learn the law, then speak on it.
And yet, that's the justification loons like the OP give - for most everything, really Learn to understand what you read, then speak on it..
I thought the answer would be, “The US Government decides what powers it has. If it says it has a power, then it has that power. And what are you going to do about it?”
Until and unless the Constitution is amended, the statement that militias are no longer necessary is not true, as it says they are right there in the document. So, call your Congress Critters and have them fire up the old Amendment machine, which is probably in need of some significant maintenance since it hasn't been used in so long, but it's at least intellectually honest to do it that way. The words don't change just because YOU think circumstances have changed. Since we still have a federal militia, that is an active thing and consists of all able bodied men who are, will be, or were able-bodied and in between 18 and 45 years of age, it must by definition still need to exist because... It does. But even repealing that law, which also isn't going to happen, is not enough to change the 2A. You're gonna just have to deal with things as they are, not how you wish they were.
