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.
Alito:
"People with illegal guns are walking around, but ordinary people can't be armed?"
Kavanaugh
"Why isn't it enough to say, 'I live in a high-crime area, and I want to defend myself?"
Is this what you're trying to salvage after your party got absolutely REKT in the elections yesterday?
Incorrect.Except for one thing: The Second Amendment isn't a "states right." It's a federal right.
Nope, just well-regulated militias.The Constitution says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Its the supreme law of the land.
Nope, just well-regulated militias.
Such ignorance.Which seems very odd, given that the whole point of the manner in which this nation was founded was to reject and rebel against English rule.
Which is all most people want.Correct.
The may-issue provision of the law will be invalidated, or at least subject to a test to determine if a given regulation manifests as an undue burden.
But laws requiring a permit or license to carry a concealed weapon will remain Constitutional; likewise laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools, courthouses, and police stations.
That's up to the SCOTUS.When is the last time you read it?
Does it give the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the militia, or the People?
That's up to the SCOTUS.
They already ruled it is an individual right not tethered to the militia, do keep up.That's up to the SCOTUS.
Of course I can, but you will get 1000 different answers from 1000 different people. But, if you are asking me to parse the literal meaning via syntax, it clearly implies that people should be able to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well-regulated militias. But that isn't how laws and courts work, in this country. Because the Constitution is very unclear on many things, having been written at a time when people still thought they could turn lead to gold, and "arms" meant single shot musket loaders.You can't read this, and decide how to answer my question for yourself: "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."
I didn't say or imply otherwise. Can you go ONE post without whining, please?They already ruled it is an individual right not tethered to the militia, do keep up.
Of course I can, but you will get 1000 different answers from 1000 different people. But, if you are asking me to parse the literal meaning via syntax, it clearly implies that people should be able to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well-regulated militias. But that isn't how laws and courts work, in this country. Because the Constitution is very unclear on many things, having been written at a time when people still thought they could turn lead to gold, and "arms" meant single shot musket loaders.
it clearly implies that people should be able to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well-regulated militias.
Difficult questions from Kagan and CJ Roberts. The basics:
True.Unfortunately IMO we will be back to the Supreme Court to determine what is an "undue burden" because the court so limits their rulings.
www.latimes.com
Sorry, but that is precisely what it says. But you, no doubt, are probably misunderstanding what I said anyway. Most Americans have the sharpness of logic of a marble covered in poo.Doesn't say that.
Sorry, but that is precisely what it says. But you, no doubt, are probably misunderstanding what I said anyway. Most Americans have the sharpness of logic of a marble covered in poo.
Sorry, but that is precisely what it says.
WillHaftawaite Let me help you out. It really helps if you understand how the negation of statements works. And when something is and is not a negation.
For example: What that sentence does NOT say is that ONLY those in well-regulated militias should have the right to bear arms.
maybe this will help your confusion.
