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.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;You can't have an organized militia if the population cannot own guns or learn how to shoot on their own.
You understand the difference between a militia and an active military unit, right?
That's not in the constitution.To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Don't own or want a gun. If a person wants to own a gun or a thousand guns, I really don't care, that is their choice. Just as I don't care if anyone else wants to vaccinate, it is not my business.Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?
Why should anyone take right-wingers seriously about their sincerity regarding being legal to the law?That's not in the constitution.
You cannot train just anyone to be in a militia. They have to grow up using guns.
Congress doesn't know shit about arming and training anyone BTW.
‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
"Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, also said the Second Amendment is losing its legal relevance in distinguishing lawful policies from unlawful ones as the gap between what he calls the "judicial Second Amendment” and the "aspirational Second Amendment" widens.
Winkler defines the "judicial Second Amendment" as how courts interpret the constitutional provision in their decisions, and the "aspirational Second Amendment" as how the amendment is used in political dialogue. The latter is "far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one," he said -- and also more prevalent.
"The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law," he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. "State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."’
Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate
In the bitter debate over gun control, battle lines are often drawn around the Second Amendment, with many in favor of gun rights pointing to it as the source of their constitutional authority to bear arms, and some in favor of tighter gun control disagreeing with that interpretation. Joseph...www.yahoo.com
This is why meaningful, constructive, good faith debate concerning the Second Amendment, its meaning, and its application as a matter of regulatory law is impossible.
The judicial Second Amendment camp and the political Second Amendment camp will always be at odds, never finding consensus or agreement – with the former following Second Amendment jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court and the latter having nothing but contempt for the Court and its decisions concerning the Second Amendment.
pointing out how much of a coward you are is hardly rabid. I am not anti gun. I own guns. I'm anti-gun-nut.Keep it up.....show us that behind all the pretense of being a reasonable person, you are a rabid, anti-gun extremist, who lies about the need for universal background checks because you need them so you can then demand gun registration....
No. those things are a reasonable precaution, and I have never heard of any one of those things either intentionally or accidentally killing an innocent person. Being armed as if you were in a war zone to go to the convince store for a soda and some double A batteries for the remote is not reasonable. It's the action of a coward gun nut with mental problems. I've told you before that I don't have a problem with you strapping a fire extinguisher to your leg.Get rid of your seat belts, fire and smoke detectors, stop looking both ways before you cross the street...those things are simply the evidence of cowardice...right?
Did that happen to you often as you grew up?I don't cower, never did.
You'd piss your pants if you ever lived in my old neighborhood of that I am certain.
The 2A is a ban on federal authority.‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
"Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, also said the Second Amendment is losing its legal relevance in distinguishing lawful policies from unlawful ones as the gap between what he calls the "judicial Second Amendment” and the "aspirational Second Amendment" widens.
Winkler defines the "judicial Second Amendment" as how courts interpret the constitutional provision in their decisions, and the "aspirational Second Amendment" as how the amendment is used in political dialogue. The latter is "far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one," he said -- and also more prevalent.
"The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law," he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. "State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."’
Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate
In the bitter debate over gun control, battle lines are often drawn around the Second Amendment, with many in favor of gun rights pointing to it as the source of their constitutional authority to bear arms, and some in favor of tighter gun control disagreeing with that interpretation. Joseph...
This is why meaningful, constructive, good faith debate concerning the Second Amendment, its meaning, and its application as a matter of regulatory law is impossible.
The judicial Second Amendment camp and the political Second Amendment camp will always be at odds, never finding consensus or agreement – with the former following Second Amendment jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court and the latter having nothing but contempt for the Court and its decisions concerning the Second Amendment.
Oh, the macho shaming. We're not manly if we have guns?Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?
Not what I said. Guns don't make you manly or not manly. I have guns. Being a gun nut who thinks he has to be armed 24/7 indicates cowardice.Oh, the macho shaming. We're not manly if we have guns?
Go fuck yourself. We're not giving them up. I don't care how much your vagina bleeds about it.
Carrying a gun is not macho or manly? Only chickenshits carry?Not what I said. Guns don't make you manly or not manly. I have guns. Being a gun nut who thinks he has to be armed 24/7 indicates cowardice.
Only a coward fears for his life 24/7/365Carrying a gun is not macho or manly? Only chickenshits carry?
Yeah, we heard you loud and clear. Fuck off. We're going to keep carrying, and you can thank us for the blanket of protection you enjoy by the presumption of being armed we provide. You're welcome.
Wear a sign around your neck 24/7/365 that states "I am not armed" or shut the fuck up.Only a coward fears for his life 24/7/365
pointing out how much of a coward you are is hardly rabid. I am not anti gun. I own guns. I'm anti-gun-nut.
You're a goofy little troll, aren't you?Wear a sign around your neck 24/7/365 that states "I am not armed" or shut the fuck up.
No. those things are a reasonable precaution, and I have never heard of any one of those things either intentionally or accidentally killing an innocent person. Being armed as if you were in a war zone to go to the convince store for a soda and some double A batteries for the remote is not reasonable. It's the action of a coward gun nut with mental problems. I've told you before that I don't have a problem with you strapping a fire extinguisher to your leg.
Only a coward fears for his life 24/7/365
You fear being put in a mass grave? Your paranoia must be overwhelming. No wonder you spend your life in abject fear.Leftists own guns…..they do not want their victims to own guns…..filling mass graves is a lot harder when your victims can shoot back
