ThoughtCrimes
Old Navy Vet
Are the liberals still frantically changing the subject away from what the 2nd amendment says, and trying to talk about what judges and lawyers say instead?The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated. They were regulated by States and local govts at the time the Constitution was ratified. Possibly you might try to argue the Fed Govt may not do so, but probably not under modern interpretation of fed power.No, the real question is the one asked in the OP.So, the real question is whether the inconvenience to you or me in having to put up with a check is outweighed by the possible benefit
The Framers wrote many exceptions and conditions into many of the Amendments. But they carefully left them out of the 2nd. Why?
And the OP pointed out that the only group with the authority to make exceptions to the 2nd, are juries.
I know you are trying hard to fool people into thinking the Framers didn't mean what they wrote. But you continue to fail to justify this idea.
PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS AND/OR
IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO UPON WHICH RELIED BY ARTICLE, SECTION AND CLAUSE.
.
It's so easy to tell when they can't refute the point of the OP, isn't it?
YES, INDEED , the fascists are still frantically changing the subject away from what the Constitution, the 2nd and 9th Amendments say. , and yes they are trying to talk about what "judges" and lawyers say instead.
By citing Amendment IX, you totally destroy your own fucking argument based on what you have written before this point, IDIOT! You don't understand that, but nonetheless you have, IDIOT!
As Madison wrote it:
“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.” [Emphasis Added]
< 1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789) >
You and your brethren will probably not understand the FULL implication of Madison's words in the Congressional record above. I underscored the important part, but it will just be casting more pearls before swine. You'll refuse to concur with the efficacy of Madison's words and the pretend they are nothing. Pity the fools, for they are IDIOTS!