Do you notice how LW never admit their real goal is to overturn the 2nd amendment?

[LuckyDuck]

Why don't they follow the processes of the government and get 2/3 of Congress and 75% of states to overturn the 2nd amendment?

It's because they know it won't happen...so they will continually try to erode it with continuing to reduce our rights.

Actually, the left's goal is to not only eliminate the Second Amendment, but to eliminate the private ownership of firearms altogether, so that they can implement their goals without armed resistance. Under their rule, the freedom of speech would be eliminated (under the guise of offensive speech, that which offends the left), the end of actual border controls and borders, the implementation of a thoroughly socialist government, ending opposing conservative political parties and the implementation of the "New World Order," a one world government with no nationalism, only a small group of individuals ruling the world and not voted in by any local populace. In short, welcome to George Orwell's "1984."

 

[g5000]

Do you notice how LW never admit their real goal is to overturn the 2nd amendment?

That's because it's not my goal.

It might not be your goal, but it is the goal of those who control the Left.

There is no evidence of that, like most of GOP voters beliefs... Pure baloney propaganda.

Dude, Nancy Pelosi was on a talking head show right after the Las Vegas shooting saying she would confiscate every gun in America if she could.

I can't find that by Googling. At any rate, San Francisco socialites are not in charge of democratic gun policy... LOL

Nancy Pelosi is just a San Francisco socialite, eh?

Wow. Why are you being so stupidly obtuse?

She got an AWB forced on the country, dipshit. She regrets that it wasn't more strict.

So you go ahead and shove your head in the sand and pretend she's a nobody.

 

[radical right]

However, this does not in any way mean our Founders were against the individual right to bear arms. You clearly don't understand the right to bear arms and a mandate that you MUST bear arms. And you are quite obviously ignorant of any knowledge of our Founders and lack common sense.

It doesn't show they were for the individual right either. They certainly were for the collective militia right to bear arms, and in fact used that to put down the whiskey rebellion.

History proves the function intended for the second amendment, and it wasn't as an individual right. It was for situations like the whiskey rebellion, or war of 1812

 

[g5000]

Seriously. How can anyone be so stupid as to believe our Founders were against someone owning a gun for their personal use?

I mean...that takes a very special kind of retard to bleev.

 

[g5000]

However, this does not in any way mean our Founders were against the individual right to bear arms. You clearly don't understand the right to bear arms and a mandate that you MUST bear arms. And you are quite obviously ignorant of any knowledge of our Founders and lack common sense.

It doesn't show they were for the individual right either. They certainly were for the collective militia right to bear arms, and in fact used that to put down the whiskey rebellion.

History proves the function intended for the second amendment, and it wasn't as an individual right. It was for situations like the whiskey rebellion, or war of 1812

You don't know shit about history. I can't believe you have so much brain damage you actually bleev our Founders didn't think a person should be able to own a gun for their personal use.

Seriously. I've heard a lot of really fucking stupid things on this forum, but this is up in the top ten.

You cannot provide a single shred of evidence to support that incredibly boneheaded claim.

 

[radical right]

Seriously. How can anyone be so stupid as to believe our Founders were against someone owning a gun for their personal use?

What do you think insurrections are fought with? They wanted the guns on the government side, in the hands of the militia.

 

[g5000]

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Never think of taking a book with you.

Jefferson's Letter to Peter Carr 9/19/1785

 

[g5000]

Seriously. How can anyone be so stupid as to believe our Founders were against someone owning a gun for their personal use?

What do you think insurrections are fought with? They wanted the guns on the government side, in the hands of the militia.

You think an army is mutually exclusive of an individual right to bear arms!

Amazing!

I am stunned at this stupidity. Truly stunned.

 

[radical right]

You don't know shit about history. I can't believe you have so much brain damage you actually bleev our Founders didn't think a person should be able to own a gun for their personal use..

They thoughyt it more of a priviledge than a right. They believed in arming the militia. And not only gave the militia members the right to bear arms, but the mandate to own arms.

 

[g5000]

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. In spite of all the nominal powers, vested in Congress by the constitution, were the system once adopted in its fullest latitude, still the actual exercise of them would be frequently interrupted by popular jealousy. I am bold to say, that ten just and constitutional measures would be resisted, where one unjust or oppressive law would be enforced. The powers vested in Congress are little more thannominal; nay real power cannot be vested in them, nor in any body, but in the people. The source of power is in the people of this country, and cannot for ages, and probably never will, be removed.

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

 

[radical right]

You think an army is mutually exclusive of an individual right to bear arms!

In response, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 11111, which federalized the Alabama National Guard, and Guard General Henry Grahamthen commanded Wallace to step aside, saying, "Sir, it is my sad duty to ask you to step aside under the orders of the President of the United States."

 

[g5000]

Every country trains and arms its people for military service. Only an idiot would believe we needed this universal activity written down in the Bill of Rights.

The second amendment's protection of a right which is NOT enjoyed by every country was unambiguously laid out by James Madison, chief architect of the Bill of Rights and the Constituion, in Federalist 46. Rather than give GOVERNMENT sole control over arms as in other countries, it was to be rested with the PEOPLE of the United States:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

 

[radical right]

Every country trains and arms its people for military service. Only an idiot would believe we needed this universal activity written down in the Bill of Rights.

The 1792 militia didn't make owning a gun a right, it made it a mandate for the members of the militia.

.

 

[BluesLegend]

Why don't they follow the processes of the government and get 2/3 of Congress and 75% of states to overturn the 2nd amendment?

It's because they know it won't happen...so they will continually try to erode it with continuing to reduce our rights.

Trying to have background checks for everyone but family members and even doing away with handguns, is not trying to do away with the 2nd Amendment.we need Hunters to kill all these damn deer. But carry on with your ridiculous brainwashed bs, hater dupe.

You are the one who is deluded.

The ultimate aim of the Left is to ban all guns. Either that, or they are fucking stupid beyond belief.

You see, the Left is always renting their clothes and weeping over the bodies of gun homicide victims.

Well, there is one way, and one way only, to effectively reduce gun homicides. Waiting times won't do it. Banning "assault weapons" won't do it. Banning bump stocks won't do it.

Those are all shams.

The only way to effectively reduce gun homicides is to ban guns entirely and confiscate the ones that are out there. And the only way to do that is to repeal the Second Amendment.

And if you were paying attention, you would see the Left is always point to the examples of countries like Australia which had mandatory confiscation!

So the only one brainwashed in this picture is you. The ultimate aim of the Left is to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate our guns.

They had Matt dettori confiscation of assault weapons... No one is talking about ending the Second Amendment nobody has anything about hunting rifles and shotguns even the most radical... And guns are only good for one thing, killing people.

shoot an Alaska brown bear with your hunting rifle, it will just piss it off.

So shoot it a couple more times... Do you live in Alaska? What do you want an RPG? Going off the deep end all we're talking about is a good background check system and no bump stocks Etc.

We both know gun control filth have no intention of stopping there admit it or you are a hack.

 

[2aguy]

Every country trains and arms its people for military service. Only an idiot would believe we needed this universal activity written down in the Bill of Rights.

The 1792 militia didn't make owning a gun a right, it made it a mandate for the members of the militia.

.

You need to read the Heller decision....Scalia explains it so even you can understand that you are wrong....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------



We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---



3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------




-------------

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”




As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”



-----------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms






--------






participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.


And what about concealed and open carry?

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry

-----
------

Page 19

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
---------

And about the millitia.....


p.38

In the famous fugitive-slave case of Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 850, 852 (CC Pa. 1833), Baldwin, sitting as a circuit judge, cited both the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania analogue for his conclusion that a citizen has “a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person, and to use them, if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence as made it necessary for the protection or safety of either.”
-----------

P.39

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
-------

p.40

Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”
-------



------
P.43

The understanding that the Second Amendment gave freed blacks the right to keep and bear arms was reflected in congressional discussion of the bill, with even an opponent of it saying that the founding generation “were for every man bearing his arms about him and keeping them in his house, his castle, for his own defense.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 362, 371 (1866) (Sen. Davis).


--


The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.
-------


We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----


-----

P.58

In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns.

See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
------------

Handguns.....

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

-------

P62-63

Balancing the Right....

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach.

The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.
-------

The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Every country trains and arms its people for military service. Only an idiot would believe we needed this universal activity written down in the Bill of Rights.

The 1792 militia didn't make owning a gun a right, it made it a mandate for the members of the militia.

.

You need to read the Heller decision....Scalia explains it so even you can understand that you are wrong....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------



We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---



3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------




-------------

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”




As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”



-----------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms






--------






participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.


And what about concealed and open carry?

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry

-----
------

Page 19

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
---------

And about the millitia.....


p.38

In the famous fugitive-slave case of Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 850, 852 (CC Pa. 1833), Baldwin, sitting as a circuit judge, cited both the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania analogue for his conclusion that a citizen has “a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person, and to use them, if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence as made it necessary for the protection or safety of either.”
-----------

P.39

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
-------

p.40

Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”
-------



------
P.43

The understanding that the Second Amendment gave freed blacks the right to keep and bear arms was reflected in congressional discussion of the bill, with even an opponent of it saying that the founding generation “were for every man bearing his arms about him and keeping them in his house, his castle, for his own defense.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 362, 371 (1866) (Sen. Davis).


--


The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.
-------


We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----


-----

P.58

In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns.

See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
------------

Handguns.....

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

-------

P62-63

Balancing the Right....

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach.

The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.
-------

The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

WINNER X 100000000

 

[jillian]

Why don't they follow the processes of the government and get 2/3 of Congress and 75% of states to overturn the 2nd amendment?

It's because they know it won't happen...so they will continually try to erode it with continuing to reduce our rights.

because it isn't moron..;...

it also isn't our goal to allow you to pretend that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to unlimited weapons of any caliber

 

[ColonelAngus]

You think an army is mutually exclusive of an individual right to bear arms!

In response, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 11111, which federalized the Alabama National Guard, and Guard General Henry Grahamthen commanded Wallace to step aside, saying, "Sir, it is my sad duty to ask you to step aside under the orders of the President of the United States."

Using force to ENFORCE federal law.....WOW.....crazy concept.

 

[francoHFW]

Trying to have background checks for everyone but family members and even doing away with handguns, is not trying to do away with the 2nd Amendment.we need Hunters to kill all these damn deer. But carry on with your ridiculous brainwashed bs, hater dupe.

You are the one who is deluded.

The ultimate aim of the Left is to ban all guns. Either that, or they are fucking stupid beyond belief.

You see, the Left is always renting their clothes and weeping over the bodies of gun homicide victims.

Well, there is one way, and one way only, to effectively reduce gun homicides. Waiting times won't do it. Banning "assault weapons" won't do it. Banning bump stocks won't do it.

Those are all shams.

The only way to effectively reduce gun homicides is to ban guns entirely and confiscate the ones that are out there. And the only way to do that is to repeal the Second Amendment.

And if you were paying attention, you would see the Left is always point to the examples of countries like Australia which had mandatory confiscation!

So the only one brainwashed in this picture is you. The ultimate aim of the Left is to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate our guns.

They had Matt dettori confiscation of assault weapons... No one is talking about ending the Second Amendment nobody has anything about hunting rifles and shotguns even the most radical... And guns are only good for one thing, killing people.

shoot an Alaska brown bear with your hunting rifle, it will just piss it off.

So shoot it a couple more times... Do you live in Alaska? What do you want an RPG? Going off the deep end all we're talking about is a good background check system and no bump stocks Etc.

We both know gun control filth have no intention of stopping there admit it or you are a hack.

Before Reagan and the new total b******* GOP, dupe, it was always no problem you could have rifles and shotguns and it was damn hard to get handguns... Now you people are brainwashed by the NRA and the bought off new bulshit GOP.

 

[francoHFW]

Trying to have background checks for everyone but family members and even doing away with handguns, is not trying to do away with the 2nd Amendment.we need Hunters to kill all these damn deer. But carry on with your ridiculous brainwashed bs, hater dupe.

You are the one who is deluded.

The ultimate aim of the Left is to ban all guns. Either that, or they are fucking stupid beyond belief.

You see, the Left is always renting their clothes and weeping over the bodies of gun homicide victims.

Well, there is one way, and one way only, to effectively reduce gun homicides. Waiting times won't do it. Banning "assault weapons" won't do it. Banning bump stocks won't do it.

Those are all shams.

The only way to effectively reduce gun homicides is to ban guns entirely and confiscate the ones that are out there. And the only way to do that is to repeal the Second Amendment.

And if you were paying attention, you would see the Left is always point to the examples of countries like Australia which had mandatory confiscation!

So the only one brainwashed in this picture is you. The ultimate aim of the Left is to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate our guns.

They had Matt dettori confiscation of assault weapons... No one is talking about ending the Second Amendment nobody has anything about hunting rifles and shotguns even the most radical... And guns are only good for one thing, killing people.

shoot an Alaska brown bear with your hunting rifle, it will just piss it off.

So shoot it a couple more times... Do you live in Alaska? What do you want an RPG? Going off the deep end all we're talking about is a good background check system and no bump stocks Etc.

We both know gun control filth have no intention of stopping there admit it or you are a hack.

You morons can have guns that looked like military weapons but no bump stocks or anything else that makes them automatic and handguns should be damned hard to buy and license, just like back in the good old days. Before Raygun and your idiotic fake news hate propaganda machine, dupe.