# Supreme Ct Says All Individuals Have Right To Bear Arms



## Viktor (Nov 14, 2020)

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia 

It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment


----------



## occupied (Nov 14, 2020)

I'd rather have Gorilla arms.


----------



## Bulletbob (Nov 14, 2020)

occupied said:


> I'd rather have Gorilla arms.


yep when your knifed bleeding on the floor and your wife and kid are being raped you would wish you had a gun


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Nov 14, 2020)

Viktor said:


> District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
> 
> It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment




Leftists hate The Bill of Rights



A flawed document.


----------



## JackOfNoTrades (Nov 14, 2020)

How about the right to arm bears?
And the point of going over already ruled upon law?
You afraid somebody's coming for your guns.....again?


----------



## Viktor (Nov 14, 2020)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> Viktor said:
> 
> 
> > District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
> ...


The thing the stupid leftists don't understand is that the average response time when you call the police is more than 25 minutes. The bad guy will be gone by then.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Nov 14, 2020)

Viktor said:


> District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
> 
> It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment


Old news


----------



## LuckyDuck (Nov 14, 2020)

occupied said:


> I'd rather have Gorilla arms.


Yeah.  Cuz gorilla arms are faster than a bullet. LOL


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Nov 14, 2020)

Viktor said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > Viktor said:
> ...




It is racist to do otherwise.


Hug  the criminal.


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Nov 14, 2020)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> How about the right to arm bears?
> And the point of going over already ruled upon law?
> You afraid somebody's coming for your guns.....again?




Nobody is afraid of you huney bear.

Unless they are passed out alone with you.....


----------



## candycorn (Nov 14, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Viktor said:
> 
> 
> > District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
> ...


I guess this is a lame attempt by the OP to intimidate


----------



## occupied (Nov 14, 2020)

Bulletbob said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather have Gorilla arms.
> ...


I got guns. Do you have a sense of humor?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 14, 2020)

Many Americans are not allowed to bear arms


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 18, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Many Americans are not allowed to bear arms


Unconstitutionally- makes you happy, correct?


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 18, 2020)

There are NO caveats in the 2nd amendment- it doesn't require interpretation- unless simple English isn't comprehended- the declarative is; shall NOT be infringed- period.


----------



## Dick Foster (Nov 18, 2020)

Viktor said:


> District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
> 
> It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment


The second amendment is one single two part sentence written in clear, concise and certain language so needs no interpretation. It states the law and also explains why it exists. It along with the supremacy clause renders all gun laws at any level within these United States un constitutional, un enforceable and illegal.  There's a beginning and end to it. It's just that simple.


----------



## Viktor (Nov 18, 2020)

Dick Foster said:


> Viktor said:
> 
> 
> > District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
> ...


No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.


----------



## Viktor (Nov 18, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> There are NO caveats in the 2nd amendment- it doesn't require interpretation- unless simple English isn't comprehended- the declarative is; shall NOT be infringed- period.


That's your interpretation, but judges and lawyers don't agree. The court's job is to interpret the law and they do it all the time.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 18, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Many Americans are not allowed to bear arms
> ...



Fellons?
Minors?
The insane?


Makes me happy


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 18, 2020)

Viktor said:


> District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
> 
> It's an interpretation of the Second Amendment


And?

Preaching to the choir.


----------



## Bulletbob (Nov 18, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Many Americans are not allowed to bear arms
> ...


Felons should not be allowed to own a gun there's a reason for that you know.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

Viktor said:


> he court's job is to interpret the law and they do it all the time.


Can you show me that in the rules? The courts job is to _*apply*_ law- to interpret requires rewriting- making a fine a tax, etc-


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

Bulletbob said:


> Felons should not be allowed to own a gun there's a reason for that you know.


According to your opinion- does shall not be infringed mean anything to you? Can you show in the words of the 2nd amendment the caveat of "except felons"? There's a thing called a dictionary, for a "reason".
Reason is a sound explanation- to try to justify is trying to excuse-


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2020)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> How about the right to arm bears?
> And the point of going over already ruled upon law?
> You afraid somebody's coming for your guns.....again?



Xi's man has vowed to disarm the peasants as the Chinese Communist Party explains here;









						Biden's gun control plan would impose strict regulations on owners of assault-style rifles - CNN Politics
					

Joe Biden is proposing to force owners of assault-style rifles to either sell their firearms through a voluntary buyback program or register them with the federal government under the same law that was first used to strictly control sales of machine guns in the wake of the gangland shootings of...




					www.cnn.com
				




But it's interesting to note that as Quid Pro wants to leave the proles defenseless;









						American gun sales soar to staggering record high in 2020
					

The year 2020 has been a record one for firearms sales.




					www.nydailynews.com
				




So the Maoist thugs who are behind corrupt old Bai-Degn are facing down more Americans than ever.

Quid Pro still plans to have the Furry as his czar of disarming the populace if he gets the steal, right?









						Joe Biden promises to put Beto O’Rourke in charge of gun control
					

Moments after former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke — who promised in a September debate to take away legally purchased assault rifles if elected — endorsed Joe Biden’s…




					nypost.com
				




Hey, a man who dresses up like a squirrel to get buttfucked is eminently qualified to tell Americans to disarm.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2020)

Viktor said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > Viktor said:
> ...



Leftists side with the bad guys - every time.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Viktor said:
> 
> 
> > District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
> ...



Xi's man promises to end the 2nd and piss all over precedent like Heller.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Nov 19, 2020)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Viktor said:
> ...


That's a lie..but you know that...LOL!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2020)

Viktor said:


> No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.



By the same token, the only speech protected is that written with a quill on parchment by candle light.

Stupid argument is stupid.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2020)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> That's a lie..but you know that...LOL!



Well someone is lying - but it's the one who always lies - you...









						Joe Biden Promise: Gun Bans, Restrictions :: Guns.com
					

Democratic 2020 Presidential candidate Joe Biden has a brutal gun control platform that promises to rewrite the country's firearm laws, gravely wound the world's most vibrant shooting sports industry, and cancel modern gun culture.




					www.guns.com


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

Dick Foster said:


> It states the law


It states what the gov't can and can't do, legally- the BoR are lines the gov't is not supposed to cross- there is one caveat, in the 4th amendment- "just cause", which is, ambiguous and has been used (especially since 9/11) nefariously to *assume* an authority on the pretext of National Security- and nary a "gov't official" complains-

Fed gov't actions restricting liberty is illegal, by definition, but, since ambiguity is what lawyers live by and thrive on, it is what we have- mostly an esoteric interpretation of whatever fits/suits an agenda to "lead" dummies into misinformation being accurate- it seems, Public Education (which is also illegal and nefarious) has convinced millions that words mean what an authority deems them to mean at a time convenient to suit/fit an agenda-

Esoteric interpretaion fails to recognize that without definition interpretation doesn't exist- yet, authoritative "lawyers" and gov't "officials" ignore the facts because it doesn't suit/fit their agenda of absolute authority-


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

Uncensored2008 said:


> By the same token, the only speech protected is that written with a quill on parchment by candle light.


Oh bullshit



Uncensored2008 said:


> Stupid argument is stupid.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Well someone is lying - but it's the one who always lies - you...


Biden CAN'T rewrite the laws, moron- not legally, idiot.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> > It states the law
> ...




I think Xi's man is arguing that the desire of the Communist party to impose tyranny is just cause to crush all civil rights.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > By the same token, the only speech protected is that written with a quill on parchment by candle light.
> ...



So you believe the 2nd only covers flintlocks and muskets?

Are you sure you read carefully?


----------



## hadit (Nov 19, 2020)

Viktor said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> > Viktor said:
> ...


Of course, they had no way of knowing about the internet and debate boards where people could write things. The 1st amendment still applies, just like the 2nd.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Well someone is lying - but it's the one who always lies - you...
> ...



Just like Potentate Obamugabe couldn't legally rewrite immigration law.

democrats are not constrained by laws or the Constitution.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

Uncensored2008 said:


> I think Xi's man is arguing that the desire of the Communist party to impose tyranny is just cause to crush all civil rights.


Whoever can argue til the cows get home- it's campaign rhetoric to keep dummy citizens divided-


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2020)

hadit said:


> Viktor said:
> 
> 
> > Dick Foster said:
> ...



Viktor offers a stupid argument for leftist hate sites.

The founding fathers did not expect progress to be frozen.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

Uncensored2008 said:


> democrats are not constrained by laws or the Constitution.


FYI, Republican subscribe to the same borrow to spend policy, the same UNjust wars, (foreign and domestic) and worldwide hegemony- those 3 items direct ALL domestic policy, which, I don't believe the constitution says is an authority- but, hey, what do I know? Oh, simple English comprehension- my bad- I have no esoteric background to present as a credential making me an '*authority*-


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The founding fathers did not expect progress to be frozen.


What do you mean frozen? Of course they didn't- they offered a way to "progress" legally- force was not it, thus a 2nd amendment-


----------



## JackOfNoTrades (Nov 19, 2020)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> > How about the right to arm bears?
> ...



No one has said anything of the sort. Sensible gun control measures do not involve confiscation. But please, fear monger away.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Sensible gun control measures do not involve confiscation


Define sensible- then, show us the caveat in the words that you believe says that-


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 19, 2020)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> How about the right to arm bears?
> And the point of going over already ruled upon law?
> You afraid somebody's coming for your guns.....again?


are you saying they arent???


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 19, 2020)

Viktor said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > There are NO caveats in the 2nd amendment- it doesn't require interpretation- unless simple English isn't comprehended- the declarative is; shall NOT be infringed- period.
> ...


saying the 2nd A can be interpreted is like saying cold blooded murder can be interpreted,,,


----------



## Dick Foster (Nov 19, 2020)

Viktor said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> > Viktor said:
> ...


Bullshit! The second amendment was penned with the events of Lexington and Concord fresh in the minds of the founders. Cannon and shot were involved in that incident which were the weapons of mass destruction of the day. The founders chose their words wisely using the word "arms" and not guns to purposely keep the 2nd both broad and lasting in its meaning so it would stay up to date and current. 
You're simply full of shit and know nothing of our history. You would do well to keep your mouth shut in future so as not to display your ignorance and limited IQ so broadly. You can't hide your short comings by parroting other idiots, you only reinforce them.


----------



## Viktor (Nov 19, 2020)

Dick Foster said:


> Viktor said:
> 
> 
> > Dick Foster said:
> ...


i WON'T shut my mouth. Are you tough enough to shut it for me, punk?:


----------



## Viktor (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> Viktor said:
> 
> 
> > he court's job is to interpret the law and they do it all the time.
> ...


You need remedial english. interpret is not rewriting.YOU ARE STUPID


----------



## Viktor (Nov 19, 2020)

Dick Foster said:


> Viktor said:
> 
> 
> > Dick Foster said:
> ...


ROTFL! Cannon in the 18th century were all single shot muzzleloaders. HAHAHAHA!


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 19, 2020)

Viktor said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > Viktor said:
> ...


the courts job is to interpret the law to see if it abides by the constitution,, the constitution is never interpreted because its written in simple english and clear to its intent,,
and thats more so with the 2nd A


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 19, 2020)

Viktor said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> > Viktor said:
> ...


the 2nd doesnt mention cannons,, it clearly states arms and under the intent it was for military arms


----------



## Dick Foster (Nov 19, 2020)

Viktor said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> > Viktor said:
> ...


I would likely stomp a mud hole in your punk ass and then I'd turn around and walk it dry. You're not only stupid, you're a punk too.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Nov 19, 2020)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> How about the right to arm bears?
> And the point of going over already ruled upon law?
> You afraid somebody's coming for your guns.....again?



Biden has promised it.

You calling your entire cult team LIARS ???


----------



## Dick Foster (Nov 19, 2020)

Viktor said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> > Viktor said:
> ...


They were nonetheless the weapons of mass destruction of the day, stupid. If the founders had wanted to limit the scope of the second they were certainly smart enough and capable enough writers to have done so. 
Why do are you working so hard to prove your stupidity? We accept that fact as abundanly clear now.


----------



## Viktor (Nov 19, 2020)

Dick Foster said:


> Viktor said:
> 
> 
> > Dick Foster said:
> ...


WOW! I'm terrified!!!!  How impressive!!!!YAK, YAK, YAK


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> the courts job is to interpret the law to see if it abides by the constitution,,


No. The courts are to apply law- not interpret it- now, if you can show us, from the constitution, otherwise-


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

Viktor said:


> You need remedial english. interpret is not rewriting.YOU ARE STUPID


I beg to differ- ask John Roberts- ya know, that Supreme that wears a black dress- a fine, is a tax instead- yeah, that guy in a black dress-


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > the courts job is to interpret the law to see if it abides by the constitution,,
> ...


I think its about the wording,,
 there is no place for interpreting in constitutional matters at the SCOTUS,,

the constitution says what it does on simple english with the federalist paper for context when needed,,,


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > democrats are not constrained by laws or the Constitution.
> ...




Nice straw man.

You jumped in when a leftist vomited out the same cliched bullshit about the founding fathers not envisioning "machine guns" (as if a leftist knows what one is) and therefore the 2nd only applies to muskets. Which is as stupid as claiming that the 1st only applies to quill and parchment. 

I understand your desire to distract from the subject, but I'm going to call you on your bullshit.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2020)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> No one has said anything of the sort. Sensible gun control measures do not involve confiscation. But please, fear monger away.



Lying when you've just been overwhelmed with cites just makes you look stupid, Comrade.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2020)

Viktor said:


> i WON'T shut my mouth. Are you tough enough to shut it for me, punk?:



Uh oh, we got an Internet Tough guy here, we all better be VERY AFRAID!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2020)

Viktor said:


> ROTFL! Cannon in the 18th century were all single shot muzzleloaders. HAHAHAHA!








You're not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag...


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 20, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> Viktor said:
> 
> 
> > You need remedial english. interpret is not rewriting.YOU ARE STUPID
> ...



Are you going to obsess over the supreme court justices robes now, weakling? It’s not entertaining enough to shriek like a little girl about “da jooos, da jooooooos” all the time? If you have any intention of ever growing up you might want to get started soon, you pathetic little nitwit.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 20, 2020)

Viktor said:


> No. The 2nd amendment says the people have a right to be armed. Back in the 18th century, when the amendment was written,the only guns available were single shot muzzleloaders. The founders had no way of knowing about automatic weapons and tanks.



  Not entirely true.

  As one example…  Puckle gun - Wikipedia

  There were other examples of similar technology, scarce, but known, at that time, and certainly plenty of reason to suppose that weapons technology would continue to advance, as it already had from throwing rocks, to spears, to bows and arrows, to cannon, to the hand-cannon, to matchlocks, and to the flintlocks that were in common use at this time.

  And at this time, when the First Amendment was also written, there were really only two common ways to get a message out to the public.  You could stand on a soapbox in the town square, and give a speech to any who would listen to you, or you could use a primitive hand-cranked printing press to publish a paper.  The men who wrote the First Amendment might have been able to envision that printing press technology would improve, but they surely never could have known what electronic would achieve—telegraph, telephone, teletype, radio, television, and eventually, the Internet.  Could they have imagined that one day, any fool at home in front of his personal computer, could post a message on a forum like this, or on a social media platform, and have it instantly seen by people all over the world?

  I think it is absurd that the authors of the Bill of Rights assumed that technology would stop advancing as soon as it was ratified, or that they intended to apply only to the technology that existed at that moment.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 20, 2020)

Bulletbob said:


> Felons should not be allowed to own a gun there's a reason for that you know.



  I'm fine with anyone who has committed a crime having all his rights restored, once he has completed his sentence, and _“paid his debt to society”_.

  An important thing that has been lost is that it used to be that anyone who was convicted of a crime serious enough to warrant permanent loss of any rights, would serve his sentence at the end of a rope, after which,it would be moot to worry about whether he should be allowed to possess arms.  Let his guns be buried with him in his grave, if that's what he wants, though it'd be a bit wasteful to so treat valuable property that could better be used by the living.


----------



## Dick Foster (Nov 21, 2020)

Viktor said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> > Viktor said:
> ...


You are indeed a brainless boob and a waste of food, air and the space you occupy on this planet. You have no more ability to reason than a turnip.


----------



## Rogue AI (Nov 22, 2020)

Viktor said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> > Viktor said:
> ...


Hardly. The Founders used privateers, those privateers were expected to purchase their own weapons of war. They had no problem with private citizens owning cannons and the like.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 29, 2020)

Viktor said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> > Viktor said:
> ...


There where also no computers, smart phones or internet. If you want to use that line of reasoning you should be ignored until you write it up using a quill and ink and have it delivered to everyone by a guy on horseback.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 29, 2020)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JackOfNoTrades said:
> ...


Your so called sensible gun control doesn't effect criminals.


----------

