One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
Former President Donald Trump dropped 298 spots in Forbes' ranking of the world's billionaires
Page <<first <prev 8 of 8
Apr 9, 2021 16:48:37   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
RandyBrian wrote:
I assure you that I fully understand every word of it. The m*****a is part of it. So is "shall NOT be infringed."
It is clear that you are trying to tie the two together, and use that as a way to get around the word NOT. It will not work. The wording is clear. The history is clear. The Federalist Papers are clear. Personal and public letters by the founders is clear. The SCOTUS rulings on the matter are clear.
You don't like it? You want to change it? Fine. There is a process in place to do so. It is called Amending the Constitution. Any thing else is illegal, violates the Constitution, and will almost certainly trigger the consequences of "pushing us too far" I mentioned earlier.
I assure you that I fully understand every word of... (show quote)


The laws on full automatic unconstitutional or well regulated?

Reply
Apr 9, 2021 16:54:39   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Been there. Done that. Manipulating the meaning of words and phrases is a very old liberal trick. I know what the original intent was, and still is.


Are you a scholar on the Constitution?

Reply
Apr 9, 2021 16:56:40   #
RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Been there. Done that. Manipulating the meaning of words and phrases is a very old liberal trick. I know what the original intent was, and still is.


Enlighten us on your interpretation

Reply
 
 
Apr 9, 2021 17:30:15   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
RascalRiley wrote:
Enlighten us on your interpretation


Did that already. However, if you want to do your own research, you can start here: This is a quote from Wikipedia.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a m*****a, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state m*****as."
While I hardly hold wikipedia up as a Constitutional authority, they did get this part right.
Have fun. The Federalist papers are a bit harder, but you can get there if you persist.

Reply
Apr 9, 2021 17:34:00   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Did that already. However, if you want to do your own research, you can start here: This is a quote from Wikipedia.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a m*****a, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state m*****as."
While I hardly hold wikipedia up as a Constitutional authority, they did get this part right.
Have fun. The Federalist papers are a bit harder, but you can get there if you persist.
Did that already. However, if you want to do your... (show quote)


Oh, in case the fact went over your head, this is not MY interpretation. It is the interpretation of a multitude of Constitutional scholars going back over 200 years, and is the considered opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. I am just the messenger. Consider it delivered.

Reply
Apr 9, 2021 17:40:14   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Did that already. However, if you want to do your own research, you can start here: This is a quote from Wikipedia.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a m*****a, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state m*****as."
While I hardly hold wikipedia up as a Constitutional authority, they did get this part right.
Have fun. The Federalist papers are a bit harder, but you can get there if you persist.
Did that already. However, if you want to do your... (show quote)


"It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated." In case it went over your head.

Reply
Apr 9, 2021 18:49:47   #
Mikeyavelli
 
Bad Bob wrote:
"It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated." In case it went over your head.


No rights are derived from the constitution, they're enumerated and enforced by the constitution.
Kan you imagine King Kaveman limiting the size of clubs in his kingdom? He'd be beaten like a white guy at a B*M "peaceful protest".

Reply
 
 
Apr 10, 2021 03:02:23   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
Bad Bob wrote:
"It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated." In case it went over your head.


So who ever said that it did NOT say that? I have never heard ANYone say that it should be unregulated? Why are you trying to change the subject? As if we all did not know.

Reply
Apr 10, 2021 06:27:20   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
RandyBrian wrote:
So who ever said that it did NOT say that? I have never heard ANYone say that it should be unregulated? Why are you trying to change the subject? As if we all did not know.


Why are you trying to change the subject? With your own posted words????

Reply
Apr 10, 2021 13:31:29   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
Bad Bob wrote:
Why are you trying to change the subject? With your own posted words????


Silly little boy. You folks are the ones who asked me questions. I answered them.
Looks like we are done. Have a good weekend.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 8
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.