Just make sure you're fighting the right fight. Wrong one can set you back, Democratic leadership has never really learned that lesson.
Just make sure you're fighting the right fight. Wrong one can set you back, Democratic leadership has never really learned that lesson.Opinions can be changed, ask the advertising industry. Look at the number of people in the US who smoke compared to 50 years ago.
Two types of folks, those who ride out and fight, those who wait for the world to end.
Just make sure you're fighting the right fight. Wrong one can set you back, Democratic leadership has never really learned that lesson.
And rubbing their nose in it never really works for Conservatives. They just blame Democrats for having their face covered in shit.It helps when one party never does anything wrong and never holds itself accountable. Democrats aren't fighting a fair battle.
One of the reasons I say ban all gun advertising and remove the industry lawsuit exemptionOpinions can be changed, ask the advertising industry. Look at the number of people in the US who smoke compared to 50 years ago.
Two types of folks, those who ride out and fight, those who wait for the world to end.
The argument was that the limits regarded the ability of the states to raise armed forces.My argument against the SC's decision regarding reproductive rights and for the current 2A decision remains the same: The Constitution limits the powers of the government, it does not grant rights.
The SC's decisions across the last two weeks have been beyond the pale, though.
Then why the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'? Why not 'The right of states to maintain an armed militia shall not be infringed'? We don't take additional interpretations for other amendments.The argument was that the limits regarded the ability of the states to raise armed forces.
Not the right of citizens and non citizens to play cosplay with loaded weapons.
The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure
District of Columbia v. Heller recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution. Here’s why the case was wrongly decided.www.theatlantic.com
Never again is what we swore the time before.Yeah I remember at the time thinking Sandy Hook was mostly white victims in the suburbs and if that did not spur change then nothing would.
Looks like I was unpleasantly correct. My next idea is start arming blacks in massive numbers. Last time that happened the NRA pushed for gun control.
It does say that. It just uses the flowery language that Thomas was fond of to do so.Then why the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'? Why not 'The right of states to maintain an armed militia shall not be infringed'? We don't take additional interpretations for other amendments.
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.
I mean, are we going to start applying the same standard to other amendments? Does the 'right of the people to peaceably assemble' not actually mean that the general populace has that right? Is that subject to limitation to some specific subset of 'people', such as only those exercising religion, or part of the press? Those are both specifically cited in the 1A.It does say that. It just uses the flowery language that Thomas was fond of to do so.
It is literally talking about the security of the capital S state, not individuals. It does not say that a person has a right to keep and bear arms, but the people do.
Just as 'we the people' was never intended to be specific individuals, but the collective, so in this case is the people a collective right not a individual one.
There is no one man militia. a militia is a collective, and they even pointed out that it needed to be well regulated because they knew the danger of poorly regulated groups with arms.
It seems plain to me that they intended the right to keep and bear arms to be a collective right and modified by the fact that they be both in a militia and that that right could be taken away if that militia was not deemed to be sufficiently regulated to keep them under control.
The same standard means that the 'right of the people to peaceably assemble' means that the general population has that right, but an individual might not, and that is literally how it is treated. Compare wording of the 2nd amendment to something like the 5th.I mean, are we going to start applying the same standard to other amendments? Does the 'right of the people to peaceably assemble' not actually mean that the general populace has that right? Is that subject to limitation to some specific subset of 'people', such as only those exercising religion, or part of the press? Those are both specifically cited in the 1A.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So individuals don't retain the right to freely express religion? What subset of 'the people' retain the right to assemble if the individual doesn't? If it's 'any subset', does that mean any group of citizens which regard themselves as a militia can still retain whatever arms they'd wish?The same standard means that the 'right of the people to peaceably assemble' means that the general population has that right, but an individual might not, and that is literally how it is treated. Compare wording of the 2nd amendment to something like the 5th.
So individuals don't retain the right to freely express religion?
Does not mention The People or person. It talks about what Congress can't do. No where does it say that that you have the right to freely express religion, only that can Congress can't prohibit it. It amounts to the same thing, but the wording sidesteps the question of it being an individual or collective right. They can't prohibit it at all, so it does not matter.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Yes, as long as it is well regulated by the State. That would presume that the State also gets to determine what the requirements are to be a militia.What subset of 'the people' retain the right to assemble if the individual doesn't? If it's 'any subset', does that mean any group of citizens which regard themselves as a militia can still retain whatever arms they'd wish?
Come here kids, Nana needs to shoot you to protect you from the evil democrats. #freedomkillingsCongresswoman Debbie Lesko (Gun-AZ) declares, on the House floor, that she would shoot her own grandchildren in order to “protect” them.
Are we going to see right-wing parents carrying out honor killings now?
Okay gun nutters, your feelings on this? You willing to admit you’ve jumped off the far end on your self defense logicCongresswoman Debbie Lesko (Gun-AZ) declares, on the House floor, that she would shoot her own grandchildren in order to “protect” them.
Are we going to see right-wing parents carrying out honor killings now?
Have you barfed today?
If you need to barf I have inspiration.
Then why the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'? Why not 'The right of states to maintain an armed militia shall not be infringed'? We don't take additional interpretations for other amendments.
As was mentioned, the founders had a penchant for flowery language. That said, our language may look just as obtuse in a few hundred years. Hence the importance of very, very specific language, as well as a willingness to adjust.I don't pretend to know what it means, but the wording of that amendment is odd. I don't see why it has so many commas in it - it makes it hard to parse for a modern English speaker. It reads like a list of sentence-fragments.
“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.”
I don't get what function that first comma has. Or even the last one. Why isn't it “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.”
Or even
“Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”