400 million guns

[ThisIsMe]

As we have seen previously...what seems reasonable to YOU is not that

That is literally the opposite of what I said

Ok, let’s go back to the beginning. Does the left want to get rid of guns?

 

[progressive hunter]

I'm saying it's corrupt because we have at least one justice who is getting compensated by a billionaire right wing political megadonor and not reporting it -- that is textbook corruption, plain and simple. If that were a political candidate, he would be looking at a criminal trial. He should be looking at one now but the law doesn't apparently provide a criminal penalty; he can therefore likely only be impeach or otherwise forced to resign.

And then we learned yesterday that Neil Gorsuch apparently has had business transactions with a law firm with matters before the Court -- more textbook corruption. But the same remedy.

Alito is just off his chain -- he doesn't even hide the fact that he doesn't give a fuck about stare decisis anymore; he just writes whatever opinion he feels like writing.

So no, I don't respect this court majority - at all. I will never see it as legitimate. I think millions out there feel similarly, and we will probably ultimately need some sort of bipartisan commission at some point to restore faith in the judiciary, because nobody will respect the current hyper-politicized nominations/confirmations process. Being honest, yes, I would agree that Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brown-Jackson are a product of that same process, so it goes both ways, but that's the point: we need a clean slate of actual jurists, not partisans. People who are capable of ruling on either side of the spectrum based on a legal analysis, not their ideology.

The Court is broken.

what about the leftist scum that totally ignore the constitution??

I bet youre OK with them,,,

face uit buttercup youre a fucking liar and pussy with chlamydia,,

 

[Captain Caveman]

How did you get so stupid? Or are you just another lying jackass?

Truth hurts, mong.

 

[MagicMike]

all that means is whats needed,,
the next section says why we need it and the last half is how we achieve it,,,

couldnt call up a militia with substandard arms,, might as well call it target practice,,

Interesting how you (supposed) "strict constitutionalists" aren't really very interested in the ACTUAL wording of The Second Amendment.
It is similiar to what Christians do with their bible....picking and choosing verses....and then misinterpreting the context to make the text say what is most convenient for them.

The Second Amendment does not say "A militia with well maintained arms shall be necessary..."
It says "A well REGULATED militia..."
This is because the intent was never to have 400 milluon unregulated firearms floating around out there and falling into the hands of the wrong people.
Nope.
The INTENT was just the opposite.
The context of "well regulated" here is that this right to "keep and bear" arms should only exist under the control of "a well regulated militia."
The SCOTUS screwed up on the 2008 Heller decision. The court was obviously trying to legislate from the bench.
The Second Amendment was not written to preserve any individual "right" to own firearms.

 

[progressive hunter]

Interesting how you (supposed) "strict constitutionalists" aren't really very interested in the ACTUAL wording of The Second Amendment.
It is similiar to what Christians do with their bible....picking and choosing verses....and then misinterpreting the context to make the text say what is most convenient for them.

The Second Amendment does not say "A militia with well maintained arms shall be necessary..."
It says "A well REGULATED militia..."
This is because the intent was never to have 400 milluon unregulated firearms floating around out there and falling into the hands of the wrong people.
Nope.
The INTENT was just the opposite.
The context of "well regulated" here is that this right to "keep and bear" arms should only exist under the control of "a well regulated militia."
The SCOTUS screwed up on the 2008 Heller decision. The court was obviously trying to legislate from the bench.
The Second Amendment was not written to preserve any individual "right" to own firearms.

liar liar pants on fire dick sticking in your ass,,,

to bad for you we have to founders own words that prove you wrong and me right,,,

no go back to whatever gay bath house you were at and leave the adults to discuss these issue,,

 

[Auld Phart]

Interesting how you (supposed) "strict constitutionalists" aren't really very interested in the ACTUAL wording of The Second Amendment.
It is similiar to what Christians do with their bible....picking and choosing verses....and then misinterpreting the context to make the text say what is most convenient for them.

The Second Amendment does not say "A militia with well maintained arms shall be necessary..."
It says "A well REGULATED militia..."
This is because the intent was never to have 400 milluon unregulated firearms floating around out there and falling into the hands of the wrong people.
Nope.
The INTENT was just the opposite.
The context of "well regulated" here is that this right to "keep and bear" arms should only exist under the control of "a well regulated militia."
The SCOTUS screwed up on the 2008 Heller decision. The court was obviously trying to legislate from the bench.
The Second Amendment was not written to preserve any individual "right" to own firearms.

Then why was the Right given to the People, and not just the Militia?

 

[progressive hunter]

Then why was the Right given to the People, and not just the Militia?

I can solve the problem and just identify as a militia,,

 

[miketx]

Truth hurts, mong.

When have you told it?

 

[2aguy]

Same cartridge. Same recoil. Same penetration ability. Same magazine capacity. Almost the same firing rate

As are all semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns......and yet, still not military, since military rifles can be fired semi-auto, 3 round burst or fully automatic.....

You doofus.

 

[2aguy]

Interesting how you (supposed) "strict constitutionalists" aren't really very interested in the ACTUAL wording of The Second Amendment.
It is similiar to what Christians do with their bible....picking and choosing verses....and then misinterpreting the context to make the text say what is most convenient for them.

The Second Amendment does not say "A militia with well maintained arms shall be necessary..."
It says "A well REGULATED militia..."
This is because the intent was never to have 400 milluon unregulated firearms floating around out there and falling into the hands of the wrong people.
Nope.
The INTENT was just the opposite.
The context of "well regulated" here is that this right to "keep and bear" arms should only exist under the control of "a well regulated militia."
The SCOTUS screwed up on the 2008 Heller decision. The court was obviously trying to legislate from the bench.
The Second Amendment was not written to preserve any individual "right" to own firearms.

Wow.......you pull that crap out of your ass and you expect us to give you credit.........

The intent was to keep the people armed in case the government turned killer against them......

 

[miketx]

Interesting how you (supposed) "strict constitutionalists" aren't really very interested in the ACTUAL wording of The Second Amendment.
It is similiar to what Christians do with their bible....picking and choosing verses....and then misinterpreting the context to make the text say what is most convenient for them.

The Second Amendment does not say "A militia with well maintained arms shall be necessary..."
It says "A well REGULATED militia..."
This is because the intent was never to have 400 milluon unregulated firearms floating around out there and falling into the hands of the wrong people.
Nope.
The INTENT was just the opposite.
The context of "well regulated" here is that this right to "keep and bear" arms should only exist under the control of "a well regulated militia."
The SCOTUS screwed up on the 2008 Heller decision. The court was obviously trying to legislate from the bench.
The Second Amendment was not written to preserve any individual "right" to own firearms.

Good God your either stupid or a liar.

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

 

[Failzero]

Then why was the Right given to the People, and not just the Militia?

Because “ ThePeople “ were / Are the Militias

 

[Auld Phart]

Because “ ThePeople “ were / Are the Militias

NO

The Militia was able bodied males, 16-45.

NO females, no one over the age of 45, no one infirm, physically or mentally.

That is why the right was given to the people.

So that those people could defend themselves, and their property.

although...

The Guns of Fort Petticoat (1957) ⭐ 6.3 | Action, Romance, War

1h 22m | Approved

www.imdb.com

 

[Failzero]

NO

The Militia was able bodied males, 16-45.

NO females, no one over the age of 45, no one infirm, physically or mentally.

That is why the right was given to the people.

So that those people could defend themselves, and their property.

although...

The Guns of Fort Petticoat (1957) ⭐ 6.3 | Action, Romance, War

1h 22m | Approved

www.imdb.com

And no current Duty Military or Law Enforcement Or members of the State Or Federal Legislatures Or Government ( why would You leave them out of the folks restricted from Militia ?

 

[Auld Phart]

And no current Duty Military or Law Enforcement Or members of the State Or Federal Legislatures Or Government ( why would You leave them out of the folks restricted from Militia ?

Current TODAY. or in 1776?

 

[Failzero]

Current TODAY. or in 1776?

In California Constitution still today

 

[Failzero]

So

Current TODAY. or in 1776?

Some States outlawed Militia in their State Constitutions in the 20thCentury ( But not Ca ) thus we had the Largest Militia in the Country from 2010-2015 ( California State Militia )

 

[progressive hunter]

So

Some States outlawed Militia in their State Constitutions in the 20thCentury ( But not Ca ) thus we had the Largest Militia in the Country from 2010-2015 ( California State Militia )

doesnt change the right of the people to keep and bear arms,,

 

[Failzero]

doesnt change the right of the people to keep and bear arms,,

Exactly !

 

[Auld Phart]

So

Some States outlawed Militia in their State Constitutions in the 20thCentury ( But not Ca ) thus we had the Largest Militia in the Country from 2010-2015 ( California State Militia )

California


nuff said