Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2017
- 46,062
- 29,787
This is where the Court has a routinely gone awry. The language of the Second Amendment, particularly the "Shall not be infringed" part is clear and unambiguous.Given the idiocy of this post you’re in no position to refer to others as ‘clueless.’Sensible legislation
Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?
Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.
Not sensible or even legal.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In case you so clueless you don't know, infringed means fucked with or limited in any manner whatsoever.
Indeed, this post is as ignorant as it is wrong – what part of ‘the Second Amendment right is not unlimited’ do you not understand.
The word infringe means to limit.
For well over 100 years, the court has ignored the plain meaning of the word infringe.
The court would've been much more successful getting the states or the legislature to amend the second amendment had the court strictly construed the word infringe. The majority of citizens would've been much more likely to accept some form of limitation.
This is my chief complaint.
When courts choose to deviate from proper construction practices, these types of disasters occur, where precedent is unclear and powermongers attempts to usurp.
The proper interpretation of the second amendment is to strike down any and all restrictions or limitations on the right to have weapons.
Don't like it?
AMEND!!!!
.