The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, they did! They were concerned that the federal government would disband the state militias, then use their goons to collect taxes and stuff.

Ask yourself this: Why didn't the framers of the Bill of Rights use the word "person," as they did in the Fifth Amendment? Why not "the right of a person"?

The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural. The Third says "Owner" rather than "Owners" because it is individual, about the singular owner of one house. The Fourth guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," with the last two words confirming that again, "people" is plural. The Sixth uses "his," and not "their." The Ninth and Tenth use the word "people" to refer to the State governments.

"People" means a collective group of people here. If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."

They never debated individual ownership; it never crossed their minds or their desks. They were always talking about the right of the State to assemble its militia on the village green, to resist the might of a central tyrant.

Ask yourself this: Why didn't the framers of the Bill of Rights use the word "person," as they did in the Fifth Amendment? Why not "the right of a person"?

Why do you feel the right of the people doesn't mean the right of a person?

The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural.

The 'people", plural, have the right to keep and bear arms.

"People" means a collective group of people here.

Yes, all the people have the right.

If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."

All the individual persons have the right.

The Ninth and Tenth use the word "people" to refer to the State governments.

I disagree.

reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"People" means a collective group of people here. If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."


If they meant the militia or the state had the right, not the people, they would have said the militia or the state.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, they did! They were concerned that the federal government would disband the state militias, then use their goons to collect taxes and stuff.

Ask yourself this: Why didn't the framers of the Bill of Rights use the word "person," as they did in the Fifth Amendment? Why not "the right of a person"?

The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural. The Third says "Owner" rather than "Owners" because it is individual, about the singular owner of one house. The Fourth guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," with the last two words confirming that again, "people" is plural. The Sixth uses "his," and not "their." The Ninth and Tenth use the word "people" to refer to the State governments.

"People" means a collective group of people here. If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."

They never debated individual ownership; it never crossed their minds or their desks. They were always talking about the right of the State to assemble its militia on the village green, to resist the might of a central tyrant.

The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural.

Which doesn't mean a single person has no right.
Each person has the right to assemble with every other person.

 

[badbob85037]

Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.

The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago

There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...

www.dailykos.com

Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

From your long rant all I can say is fuck you very much. Leave the country and try to let the door hit you in the ass. Buy em books, send them to school and they still haven't a clue, eat shit, and bother people. A LESSER RIGHT What an idiot is that why it is the Second Amendment? Get out of my country!

 

[Polishprince]

Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.

The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago

There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...

www.dailykos.com

Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

The liberals always interpreted the 2nd Amendment as giving the Armed Forces the right to bear arms- not the people.

So, as a lib, how can you say its a failure? If we dump the 2nd, won't the militia, aka the US Army, Navy and Marines, have to surrender their weapons? And how would that work?

 

[Rambunctious]

In late 2018, Trump made one of his biggest gun policy moves: He banned bump stocks — an add-on device meant to simulate near-automatic rates of fire on conventional guns. The devices came under scrutiny after a shooter in Las Vegas used a cache of bump-stock equipped rifles to kill 60 people and wound 411 others in 2017.

 

[toobfreak]

Move to Canada

Worse, not a single person agrees with this crackpot seditious anti-American rant except one person: a new moderator!

 

[bripat9643]

There is no right to murder children in school classrooms.

That's true. That doesn't alter the fact that we do have the right to bear arms.

 

[bripat9643]

From your long rant all I can say is fuck you very much. Leave the country and try to let the door hit you in the ass. Buy em books, send them to school and they still haven't a clue, eat shit, and bother people. A LESSER RIGHT What an idiot is that why it is the Second Amendment? Get out of my country!

Where is the term "lessor right" mentioned in the Constitution? The OP is a total load of nonsense.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.

The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago

There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...

www.dailykos.com

Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

Well said.

 

[Flash]

Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.

The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago

There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...

www.dailykos.com

Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

 

[Oddball]

Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.

The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago

There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...

www.dailykos.com

Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

 

[Flash]

Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.

The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago

There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...

www.dailykos.com

Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

It is amazing how brazen you filthy ass Left Wing turds have become.

Like all filthy Leftest your agenda has always been to take firearms away from the people so that your almighty state would be the supreme power. You can't have anybody to resist making this country a Socialist shithole so the guns have to go.

It use to be that you deranged assholes hid your agenda by claiming that you support the Second but just wanted "reasonable gun control".

Now you dickheads are brazen about doing away with a fundamental right in the Constitution of this country and that is despicable.

It is not about public safety because the crooks will always have access to what they need to commit their crimes, even illegally.

It is about reducing the ability of the people to resist government power. Our Founding Fathers understood that power needs to be in the hands of the people, not the government. Stupid uneducated Libtards like you have no concept of what they were talking about do you? You Moon Bats are as confused about the Constitution as you are confused about Economics, History, Climate Science, Biology and Ethics, aren't you?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

Pure fabricated BS.

It is so important it is the only enumerated right with the specific limitation on Gov't, "Shall Not Be Infringed".

 

[Big Bend Texas]

It is amazing how brazen you filthy ass Left Wing turds have become.

Like all filthy Leftest your agenda has always been to take firearms away from the people so that your almighty state would be the supreme power. You can't have anybody to resist making this country a Socialist shithole so the guns have to go.

It use to be that you deranged assholes hid your agenda by claiming that you support the Second but just wanted "reasonable gun control".

Now you dickheads are brazen about doing away with a fundamental right in the Constitution of this country and that is despicable.

It is not about public safety because the crooks will always have access to what they need to commit their crimes, even illegally.

It is about reducing the ability of the people to resist government power. Our Founding Fathers understood that power needs to be in the hands of the people, not the government. Stupid uneducated Libtards like you have no concept of what they were talking about do you? You Moon Bats are as confused about the Constitution as you are confused about Economics, History, Climate Science, Biology and Ethics, aren't you?

Should they ever prevail at least five of our most fundamental rights will have been eliminated.

 

[Flash]

Should they ever prevail at least five of our most fundamental rights will have been eliminated.

Without the Second the Bill of Rights might as well be used for toilet paper for all the use it will be.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Without the Second the Bill of Rights might as well be used for toilet paper for all the use it will be.

Absent the 2nd the rest are nothing more than suggestions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

What USSC precedent did Heller overturn?

 

[jbrownson0831]

From your long rant all I can say is fuck you very much. Leave the country and try to let the door hit you in the ass. Buy em books, send them to school and they still haven't a clue, eat shit, and bother people. A LESSER RIGHT What an idiot is that why it is the Second Amendment? Get out of my country!

Commies do hate our country don't they?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing more, yeah that's true in the minds of those who kill by sport and support putting a gun into the hands of every person.

These people do not exist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal. Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns.

What sound argument is there that firearms are NOT 'arms" as th eterm us use din the 2nd?

Arms are in the times in Armories,....

In the 18th and at least pat of the 19 centuires., militiman provided their own basic weapons.