No. It’s been explained to you enough times by now.
I’ve heard your deliberately twisted interpretation of the Second Amendment enough times. Are you still going with 2nd= state army, or are you currently championing the “slave patrol” slander?
The judge cited a SCotUS majority opinion written by Antonin Scalia that suggests that 2A is not meant to be interpreted as brooking no restraint. Scalia, if you had not heard, was one of the most right-wing judges in the Court’s modern history, who was regarded as an originalist scholar. I guess we shall see how this court feels about precedent – if this issue even gets that far.
I’m hoping this one gets taken to the Supremes who I expect to take it out behind the woodshed and give it the beatdown it so desperately deserves.
None of the provisions of the Bill of Rights have ever been held to secure a boundless libertarian immunity from government interference. But the judge’s ruling taken at face value would be that gun regulation is a states’ rights issue that the Second has no bearing on; which is contradicted by the McDonald v. Chicago ruling.
Not that either, friend.
Which is as incredible as would be a ruling that the First Amendment somehow authorizes government censorship.
Perhaps it’s time you reread a few case summaries. The SC rulings you refer to don’t say what you think/wish they did.
If you wonder what the Founding Fathers would have thought of the AR-15 — the “AR” stands for “America’s Rifle” — you should ask them. This may not be as hard as it might seem: most of the Founding Fathers are surely “rolling over in their graves.”
But I’d rather operate in the present. Let’s review the groups of gun owners and ask which ones need the AR-15:
(1) Ranchers who want to kill the coyotes that’ve been eating their goats.
(2) Sportsmen who need to shoot pheasants or peacocks who’ve had their wings clipped.
(3) Playboys who find that packing heat makes their penises harder.
(4) Patriots eager to help Trump MAGA by going to the border and shooting Kenyan terrorists sneaking across.
(5) Late-night prowlers who want to take out a mugger rather than give them the $50 in their wallet. (But, with people carrying plastic instead of cash, is mugging on the decline as a profession?)
(6) Christians whose God wants them to be happy.
I may have left out some groups of gun-owners, but let’s start with these. I guess group (4) and possibly (1) need their America’s Rifles. Group (2) may be better off without semi-autos — these dotards might end up just maiming a friend in the face. I don’t think Groups (3) and (5) want any kind of long gun. And if an American can’t get a hard-on with a gun smaller than a Glock 19, I’d suggest a Viagra prescription instead.
As for Group (6), let’s listen to Fabian Rodriguez:
So he should have “exactly what the government has.” Why stop at America’s Rifle? When the Fake Media/Deep State turns the country back over to Michelle Obama, won’t we want bazookas and Stinger missiles? I think the 2nd A should allow us to have sarin nerve gas: Obama would certainly use it against us if he could.
Why doesn’t that guy collect printing presses because the 1st Amendment protects the free press?
I’ll bet that makes his students and fellow teachers feel ever so much safer.
What bothers me most, really, is the number of people, including some on this very board, who talk openly about how they’re preparing to *kill *people, including police who come to enforce a law they only hypothesize about but would decline to abide by as citizens if it came to pass. They not only fantasize about it and tell us about their fantasy, they often have acquired the means to do it and practice using it.
The board is *supposed *to have a strongly enforced rule against making death threats, but it is not applied to those making that particular sort of death threat.
These folks, and they are numerous, typically go on to solemnly agree we need to keep guns away from the mentally ill, but they say that without any sense of irony . They even go on to insist that they’re the Good Guys, despite all the evidence that they are, in fact, Bad Guys, threats to the safety of us all and especially to law enforcement officers.
Yep, that sure is strange.
“I have guns because the Constitution guarantees that I can”
“Would you give up your guns if the Constitution outlawed them?”
“No way!”
:rolleyes:
“No way!” *and *“If the tyrannical government sends their jackbooted thugs to get my AR-15, I’m spraying lead!” etc.
That’s threatening to kill police officers. Threats by people who claim to be law-abiding citizens. I wish I didn’t get it, but I do.
The same people who are prepared to take up arms against “the government” (not necessarily here but elsewhere on the interwebs) also seem to assume that the majority of police and military personnel will be on their side, so I’m not sure what they’re planning on shooting at.
And also we should respect the troops always. Unless we feel the need to shoot them in defense of the country. Whose government we are working to overthrow. Because freedom!
The are told by the NRA that their enemies are liberals and minorities, so I assume that that is who they will be shooting at.
In defense of the indefensible, most gun nuts think the 2nd Amendment was granted by the Baby Jesus himself, or his Daddy, and predates any human-written law. Find any group of typical white American males and ask them about the Second Commandment and I’ll lay odds you’ll get more responses about guns than about graven images.
OTOH, the North Carolina Council of Churches has contrasted the two Second Amend/Command-ments and shown us that not all American Christians are stark-raving insane:
Hmm. 1.5 million in a state with over 10 million. Anyone want to bet that white-skinned Christians are under-represented in this forward-thinking group? (Jennifer Copeland herself is white, but gun worshippers are mostly whites ashamed of their penis size, and Ms. Copeland lacks a penis altogether.)
Oh, it’s here too. You know the names.
Yes, the liberals will have jackboots. :rolleyes:
“And you will know me by my jackboots.”