Jump to content

2nd Amendment - Interpretation


Recommended Posts

With this current Supreme Court, I hope for a clear interpretation:

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.

The Framers wrote those words carefully:

"... well regulated Militia.. "

=====

If not, the US needs a Constitutional amendment to clarify.

No civilised person wants to live in a society where any whacko can have a nuclear weapon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2022 at 2:02 AM, August1991 said:

With this current Supreme Court, I hope for a clear interpretation:

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.

The Framers wrote those words carefully:

"... well regulated Militia.. "

=====

If not, the US needs a Constitutional amendment to clarify.

No civilised person wants to live in a society where any whacko can have a nuclear weapon. 

Point by point:

1. The Militias at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment were not regular army. They were private citizens who owned firearms.

2. The US does NOT need a Constitutional amendment to clarify anything. It needs dumbasses to learn how to read.

3. As far as a civilized  person living in a society where any whacko can have a nuclear weapon, talk to the Kenyan Fool (Obama) who signed a deal giving IRAN the means to own a nuclear weapon.

Gee! I bet you're okay with Iran aiming those nukes at Israel and vaporizing all those Jews, eh, Adolf?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, reason10 said:

I favour the repeal of the First Amendment, so you can by the government for putting out such a stupid post.

How's that, Adolf?

The freedom to say what you want is not the same as an individual's right to have a nuclear weapon.

The Second Amendment has a proviso.

The First Amendment does not 

IMHO. this current Supreme Court has guts.

====

Let's see what happens.

 

Edited by August1991
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, August1991 said:

The freedom to say what you want is not the same as an individual's right to have a nuclear weapon.

The Second Amendment has a proviso.

The First Amendment does not 

IMHO. this current Supreme Court has guts.

====

Let's see what happens.

 

Show us in the Second Amendment where it mentions a nuclear weapon.

It says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, August1991 said:

The freedom to say what you want is not the same as an individual's right to have a nuclear weapon.

The Second Amendment has a proviso.

The First Amendment does not 

IMHO. this current Supreme Court has guts.

====

Let's see what happens.

 

Mentioning a militia is not a proviso. That's just plain ignorant. And it DOESN'T say "only militias, police, military and Democrat  politicians' bodyguards are permitted to own a firearm."

Each time a Canadian wags his/her/its finger at me about American freedoms only makes me glad my father moved to America from Quebec before starting a family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2022 at 7:02 AM, reason10 said:

Point by point:

1. The Militias at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment were not regular army. They were private citizens who owned firearms.

2. The US does NOT need a Constitutional amendment to clarify anything. It needs dumbasses to learn how to read.

3. As far as a civilized  person living in a society where any whacko can have a nuclear weapon, talk to the Kenyan Fool (Obama) who signed a deal giving IRAN the means to own a nuclear weapon.

Gee! I bet you're okay with Iran aiming those nukes at Israel and vaporizing all those Jews, eh, Adolf?

All militias are composed of private citizens. That is the very definition of a militia whether government provides the arms or they use their own.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Aristides said:

And if the people in control decide to shut you up. What then Sherlock?

Perhaps now you are starting to grow a little bit of a brain. Now you understand the  Constitution.

Shutting someone up. Disarming someone.

Same thing, and the reason for reins on government control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2022 at 8:44 PM, herbie said:

What the Hell have guns got to do in a thread about morality?

Perhaps you should ask Democrat politicians that. They had no problem incinerating the women and children of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas.

When a Democrat goon kills an innocent woman or child, it's not such a big deal.

When a Republican defends his home with deadly force, WokeNazis go ballistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,355
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    JoshDotoli
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • whoshere earned a badge
      First Post
    • TomT earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • TomT went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Tony Hladun went up a rank
      Explorer
    • TomT earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...