Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lets not forget that a license is required to operate a car.
Your cited case is in no way a ruling that "The 2nd Amendment is a bar on federal authority. PERIOD."
In fact, the federal government has jurisdiction over firearms in a number of areas:
I POSSESSION OR RECEIPT OF A FIREARM OR AMMUNITION BY A PROHIBITED PERSONII. KNOWINGLY SELL, GIVE OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF ANY FIREARM OR AMMUNITION TO ANY PERSON WHO FALLS WITHIN ONE OF THE ABOVE CATEGORIES...III. USE, CARRY OR POSSESS A FIREARM IN RELATION TO OR IN FURTHERANCE OF A FEDERAL DRUG FELONY OR A FEDERAL CRIME OF VIOLENCE.V. FIREARM IN A SCHOOL ZONEVI. KNOWINGLY POSSESS OR MANUFACTURE CERTAIN FIREARMSVII. SELL, DELIVER OR TRANSFER FIREARM OR AMMUNITION TO A JUVENILE
Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....
I'm just reading the whole sentence and interpreting it per the rules of standard grammar. Had the authors intended the 2ndA to be unabridged, all that they had to do is not include the prefatory clause .Lying shit stain! Trashed.Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.
Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.
That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.
Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....
Yes they were given the right because the security of a free state DEPENDS on theNo it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.Why dont' you read the entire sentence?Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.
Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.
That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.
Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....
"Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.
you're hilarious.
It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?
Yes they were given the right because the security of a free state DEPENDS on theNo it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.Why dont' you read the entire sentence?Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.
Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.
That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.
Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....
"Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.
you're hilarious.
It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?
You are confused, I never wrote that the right was given to the militia. Paste it here or try a new angle with your misreading of plain language.No it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.Why dont' you read the entire sentence?Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.
Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.
That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.
Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....
"Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.
you're hilarious.
It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?
A well regulated militia? It ain't much of a militia without weapons, now is it?Yes they were given the right because the security of a free state DEPENDS on theNo it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.Why dont' you read the entire sentence?Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.
Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.
That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.
Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....
"Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.
you're hilarious.
It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?
" Yes they were given the right because the security of a free state DEPENDS on the " ??
the what?
My sympathies, sincerely.Lets not forget that a license is required to operate a car.
Big deal. My 1st wife in 1980 had to retest in WA with a CT license. The examiner said "well if it was up to me you would never drive but you passed I have to give it to you."
She couldn't drive. Put on a left blinker to turn right, always. Totaled the car, permanent disfigured my daughter. So much for a driver lic.
No offense, but I'm sure you won't mind if I don't take your word for what God says.Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....
God said it first. No 2nd needed.
You are confused, I never wrote that the right was given to the militia. Paste it here or try a new angle with your misreading of plain language.No it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.Why dont' you read the entire sentence?Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.
Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.
That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.
Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....
"Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.
you're hilarious.
It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?
Broadly, I would say that it means capable of operating efficiently, rules, regs, chain of command, weapons, etc, etc.
I never wrote that the right was given to the militia.
As to your opening denial, in Post #480 you wrote to me:You are confused, I never wrote that the right was given to the militia. Paste it here or try a new angle with your misreading of plain language.No it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.Why dont' you read the entire sentence?Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.
Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.
That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.
Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....
"Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.
you're hilarious.
It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?
Broadly, I would say that it means capable of operating efficiently, rules, regs, chain of command, weapons, etc, etc.
I never wrote that the right was given to the militia.
Never said you did, did I?
You're posting like the 'people' have no right to won a firearm.
"Broadly, I would say that it means capable of operating efficiently, rules, regs, chain of command, weapons, etc, etc."
Well regulated.
Between ages of 16-45, in some areas, 57.
sound of mind and body.
That is the requirement to belong to a militia.
By YOUR standard, citizens under the age of 16 and over the age of 45 cannot even own a firearm for hunting, or self defense.
the FF understood that, which is why the RIGHT was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.
But y'all are stuck on the first quarter of the amendment, and claim that only the militia have a right to own a firearm.
and that's why, IMO, over 60% of the country laughs at you.
They do ban cars in some areas.If more people are killed by cars than guns, why don't they want to ban cars instead of guns?If being able to fondle a shooty infuses confidence, why are so many of the gun-dependent so insecure?Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"
Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!
Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.
As to your opening denial, in Post #480 you wrote to me:You are confused, I never wrote that the right was given to the militia. Paste it here or try a new angle with your misreading of plain language.No it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.Why dont' you read the entire sentence?Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.
Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.
That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.
Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....
"Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.
you're hilarious.
It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?
Broadly, I would say that it means capable of operating efficiently, rules, regs, chain of command, weapons, etc, etc.
I never wrote that the right was given to the militia.
Never said you did, did I?
You're posting like the 'people' have no right to own a firearm.
"Broadly, I would say that it means capable of operating efficiently, rules, regs, chain of command, weapons, etc, etc."
Well regulated.
Between ages of 16-45, in some areas, 57.
sound of mind and body.
That is the requirement to belong to a militia.
By YOUR standard, citizens under the age of 16 and over the age of 45 cannot even own a firearm for hunting, or self defense.
the FF understood that, which is why the RIGHT was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.
But y'all are stuck on the first quarter of the amendment, and claim that only the militia have a right to own a firearm.
and that's why, IMO, over 60% of the country laughs at you.
"It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?" Please explain why you felt the need to ask your lame question. Again, I made no such argument.
The first quarter of the sentence is a prefatory clause, a modifier, an incomplete thought that cannot stand alone. I'm not stuck on it. I'm simply reading the whole sentence as the author intended. You want to pretend that said MODIFYER is not there. But, there it is.
Nothing about anything I've written, as you suggest of me, issues that 16 year-olds can't own to hunt, or that others can't own for self-protection. Would you'd like to ask me where you can shove your strawman arguments? Sorry, but iIt's a real bore having to defend positions that you draw for me.
Regarding your 60% opinion, ask me if I give a shit.
Again, I made no such argument.
an incomplete thought that cannot stand alone.
It depends on the regulations employed. Most conservatives are fine with psychological background checks. What people object to are arbitrary limits on magazine sizes, arbitrary limits on semiauto rifles, or red flag laws that are vaguely worded and easily abused.Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.
They do ban cars in some areas.
A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe
They do ban cars in some areas.If more people are killed by cars than guns, why don't they want to ban cars instead of guns?If being able to fondle a shooty infuses confidence, why are so many of the gun-dependent so insecure?Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"
Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!
Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.
A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe
A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws
It depends on the regulations employed. Most conservatives are fine with psychological background checks. What people object to are arbitrary limits on magazine sizes, arbitrary limits on semiauto rifles, or red flag laws that are vaguely worded and easily abused.
There aren’t any people in prison awaiting trial. People waiting for trials are in local or county jails.We lock up the wrong people and we have pretty horrible bail policies.We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.High legal gun ownership guarantees lots of criminals with guns.
yeah that's why crime rates are lower than they were 20 years ago
Law enforcement is gunned down weekly. That is rare in countries with strong gun control. They also rarely shoot people . Many of our problems are due to weak gun laws.
Did you know that almost 70% of people in prisons right now have not been convicted of any crime but are merely awaiting trial?
