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.
Your bad luck is, I could care less. Hope you find someone else to talk to, being alone must be a bitch.
The world would be a better, safer place if someone like you did not own a gun. It would be a better, safer place if people other than the police and military did not own guns.Are you speaking for everyone on the boards? Afraid to stand alone?I want the world to be a better place. I would love to see America be as good as the country that I grew up in. And you should wake up, people on these boards are always talking about Europe.Really?
You are less safe because an American who lives an ocean away from you owns guns? Why the fuck do you care if Americans are shooting each other in America when you don't live here?
We really don't care about anything you do in Ireland so just return the favor
We don't care what you want. You do not live here so it doesn't matter what you want.
and you haven't told me how an American with a gun makes you less safe yet.
Fine with me I don't give a fuck what you want.
Now atop dodging the question and tell me how you are less safe because I own a gun.
States have the power to regulate arms.
You don't know what you are talking about. Our supreme law of the land is about Order over Chaos. Your version is Only chaos without Order.Your interpretation is not only wrong, but retarded.Just remember, only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
All the 2nd Amendment does is prohibit Congress from regulating arms. All the "wellness of regulation" and the "Necessary" for security, and the "infringed" only when bearing arms for the state or union, is all WRONG.
States have the power to regulate arms. The Federal Government does not.
THAT IS ALL IT MEANS!!!
it specifically applies to well regulated militia of the People not the unorganized militia of the People.States have the power to regulate arms.
Where in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find the authority for states to infringe the right thus addressed?
it specifically applies to well regulated militia of the People not the unorganized militia of the People.[/QUOTE]Where in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find the authority for states to infringe the right thus addressed?
Then it would say:it specifically applies to well regulated militia of the People not the unorganized militia of the People.States have the power to regulate arms.
Where in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find the authority for states to infringe the right thus addressed?
Where in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find the authority for states to infringe the right thus addressed?it specifically applies to well regulated militia of the People not the unorganized militia of the People.
Do you know what Well Regulated means? Do you know what the People means?
The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized.Then it would say:it specifically applies to well regulated militia of the People not the unorganized militia of the People.States have the power to regulate arms.
Where in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find the authority for states to infringe the right thus addressed?
the right of the well regulated militia of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
But it doesn't. That red part exists only in your imagination and in the posts of people like me who like to ridicule retards like you.
That is the most retarded thing I have ever read.it specifically applies to well regulated militia of the People not the unorganized militia of the People.
NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.
His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.
But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.
Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.
More: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law
I salute Massachusetts for passing commonsense gun laws! Thankfully, we have states like Massachusetts that are moving forward on gun control. Hopefully more will follow their lead.
you don't seem to have any understanding of the terms in our Second Amendment, or our federal form of Government, nor event the concept of the militia.That is the most retarded thing I have ever read.it specifically applies to well regulated militia of the People not the unorganized militia of the People.
It specifically applies in the context of the Constitution as a whole. In the context of the entire document, it was intended to limit the power of congress.
You need to just give up on your attempts at any manner of legal interpretation. You have it all completely wrong.
The 2nd Amendment DOES NOT appply to the militia...AT ALL!!!
I have provided quotes and other sources backing up my interpretation. You have not. You are WRONG, communist. Give it up.
The People are the Militia. The unorganized militia is nowhere enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.This is how retarded you sound:
“The wellness of regulation of the organized militia of the Peole shall not be, except as unorganized and unnecessary to the peole of militia, not be infringed.
nothing but appeal to ignorance of the law.In common terms:
A properly functioning militia is necessary for the defense of a free State; therefore, Congress shall not infring on the right of individuals to have and use weapons.
What does it mean IN PLAIN ENGLISH?
Congress cannot pass laws that affect people possessing or using weapons.
Congress has no power.
The right to weapons is protected from Congress.
Congress shall make no law
Not States, Congress.
No, it doesn't. The right wing has Nothing, but appeal to ignorance of the law.it is a mistake to conflate an original constitutionalprovision with a 1903 statute defining "organized" verses "unorganized". In the 1790s. There was no such distiction, and "well-regulated" meant properly functioning.
You don't even know what that means.No, it doesn't. The right wing has Nothing, but appeal to ignorance of the law
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the right to arms. Your interpritation renders the 2nd Amenfment meaningless. No need to add the 2nd if it is already coverec under article 8.Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States, must be Prescribed by our federal Congress.
