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.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Could also translate that the States have a right to a Ham Sandwich and the Federal Government doesn't. This is just too vague.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Again, too vague. It can mean that EVERYONE except the Federal Government (when the 10th is applied) must have the right to that Ham Sandwich.
it all depends on whom is doing the interpreting as to the meaning. While it was well written for 1790, it isn't today. It needs to be clarified. And since Congress won't or is incapable, then the Supreme Court has that job.
Actually they are crystal clear to people with higher literacy levels than you evidently possess
Is that the best you can do? Are you telling me that you are about to put an entire industry of Legal Scholars out of work? If only you could.
Yes, they are incompetent, leftist idiots. The 10th says that if the power is not ENUMERATED (a vocabulary word for you to look up) in the Constitution, than it is specifically a power denied the Federal government.
What about that is unclear to you?
And the 9th says that makes them no less of rights than powers specifically withheld from the Federal government in the Bill of Rights and other amendments.
What about that is unclear to you?
Most of what the Federal government does now is Unconstitutional
Then take it up in court. Or take it up in the States. If it's true you do have options. That is, if you are right.
Or you can just take up our time and bitch about it.
Oh stop whining. And yeah, go to the criminals and tell them to decide. Tell me about some times that worked for you
Disarming honest citizens HELPS criminals, moron. It doesn't harm them
The 2nd Amendment has magical powers to prevent security issues. Praise Odin.We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.
Investigate SSRI antidepressants. There is a start.How about some practical solutions at lower cost, instead of nothing but repeal, Right Wingers.
But then there's the coma, as in a pause, then "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." that's a pretty clear statement. Then there is also the subsequent writings and such from the framers of the Constitution that confirm the peoples rights.So is the "well regulated militia".Shall not be infringe is pretty damn specific.Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?
Or you can wait the National average of 11 minutes for a police response and become a statistic. I think I'd rather exercise my Constitutional right and defend me and mine without waiting for the police.The 2nd Amendment has magical powers to prevent security issues. Praise Odin.We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.
why have a right to keep and bear Arms, right wingers.The 2nd Amendment has magical powers to prevent security issues. Praise Odin.We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.
Because the Constitution, the ultimate law of the land states, I have the right to. End of conversationwhy have a right to keep and bear Arms, right wingers.The 2nd Amendment has magical powers to prevent security issues. Praise Odin.We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.
This is a lie.I'm pretty sure the majority of the Military will refuse to follow an unlawful order to disarm US citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. I know I would have when i served,Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void
Actually not.I'm pretty sure the majority of the Military will refuse to follow an unlawful order to disarm US citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. I know I would have when i served,Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void
I'm fairly sure under the PA , where only the executive branch dictates martial law , that the military can be ordered to do exactly that.
It's not a pretty thought, and i can image troops being torn over having to do so w/o any good reason
Unfortunate such laws exist that literally fly in the face of constitutionality
~S~
Such is the reprehensible right: conservatives have no problem placing an undue and un-Constitutional burden on the right to vote.It is easier to fake a photo ID than a signatureWe do have identificationThe US Government needs a list of all gun owners and the weapons they have.
It is the only way we can form well regulated militias
Yes, well we on the right believe that we need to have positive identification of everybody voting, and you on the left insist it's government intrusion, racism and voter oppression.
A signature
View attachment 194587
Nothing in this reply is factual, correct, or even born of a tenacious grasp of reality.This is a lie.I'm pretty sure the majority of the Military will refuse to follow an unlawful order to disarm US citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. I know I would have when i served,Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void
No one is talking about ‘disarming’ anyone.
The point is this: the notion that private citizens armed only with semi-automatic weapons could ‘overthrow’ a government some have incorrectly and subjectively perceive to have become ‘tyrannical’ is idiocy, rendering the ‘argument’ that citizens have a right to possess firearms to ‘fight tyranny’ completely devoid of merit.
That’s why the Heller Court found that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right, unconnected with militia service, acknowledging the fact that ‘the militia’ have become an anachronism
The ‘Red Dawn’ fantasy is as ridiculous as is wrong.
And the military would indeed follow the lawful order of putting down a lawless insurrection instigated by armed citizens who have incorrectly and subjectively perceived the government to have become ‘tyrannical,’ a government put into place reflecting the will of the majority of the people.
Nothing in this reply is factual, correct, or even born of a tenacious grasp of reality.This is a lie.I'm pretty sure the majority of the Military will refuse to follow an unlawful order to disarm US citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. I know I would have when i served,Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void
No one is talking about ‘disarming’ anyone.
The point is this: the notion that private citizens armed only with semi-automatic weapons could ‘overthrow’ a government some have incorrectly and subjectively perceive to have become ‘tyrannical’ is idiocy, rendering the ‘argument’ that citizens have a right to possess firearms to ‘fight tyranny’ completely devoid of merit.
That’s why the Heller Court found that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right, unconnected with militia service, acknowledging the fact that ‘the militia’ have become an anachronism
The ‘Red Dawn’ fantasy is as ridiculous as is wrong.
And the military would indeed follow the lawful order of putting down a lawless insurrection instigated by armed citizens who have incorrectly and subjectively perceived the government to have become ‘tyrannical,’ a government put into place reflecting the will of the majority of the people.
Why do you think it is that those on the side of evil are so determined to remove the right of good people to have the means to protect themselves from them?
That is my point. I am addressing the people, including the ones on this very thread, who are making their argument for NO gun regulations based on a 100% strict interpretation of the wording of the 2nd. If you have a problem, address it with them.What am I making up? If we are saying the 2nd is clear cut, then it is clear cut. The right to bear arm will NOT be infringed. Period. End of story. We cannot use the strict interpretation of the 2nd as rationale for not having to register guns, not being able to buy whatever guns we want, etc., but then ignore it when it comes to things like felons, the mentally ill, Muslim nutjobs, etc..Seems pretty straightforward. Let's follow that, to the letter. Thus, every U.S. citizen (man, woman, child), should have unfettered access to every and all arms, including fully automatic weapons of all calibers, R.P.G.'s, etc.. This also means that things such as being a released felon with a history of violent crimes does not disqualify you from owning whatever arm you desire. Same goes for U.S. citizens who are Muslim and have expressed sympathy and understanding for jihadists. Also, the mentally ill must have full access.
You just like to make shit up don't you.
RPGs? Felons with violent crime history, what you are making up is the zero sum game. No one is proposing that those things happen and don't give me any of that childish nonsense that I have to have one or the other. it's a lie. Period.
Anyone can buy a fake IDSuch is the reprehensible right: conservatives have no problem placing an undue and un-Constitutional burden on the right to vote.It is easier to fake a photo ID than a signatureWe do have identificationThe US Government needs a list of all gun owners and the weapons they have.
It is the only way we can form well regulated militias
Yes, well we on the right believe that we need to have positive identification of everybody voting, and you on the left insist it's government intrusion, racism and voter oppression.
A signature
View attachment 194587
