I didn't say anything about the ATF actually.. so what goalpost was I moving, specifically?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I was merely making fun of your retardation... one post right after another.
Printable View
I didn't say anything about the ATF actually.. so what goalpost was I moving, specifically?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I was merely making fun of your retardation... one post right after another.
Can you show me an actual cite source that "A well regulated militia" literally means "regulating firearms"? Like I have heard so many retarded arguments against the 2nd Amendment... but I'll be honest, I don't believe I have ever read one THIS fucking retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
SPOILER: The Second Amendment's "well-regulated" clause historically refers to a well-trained and organized militia, not gun control for individuals. It emphasizes the importance of a citizenry capable of defending itself, rather than government regulation of firearms.
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs Bruen, 2020Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Per the decision, laws restricting firearms ownership must meet the "text, history, and tradition" measure. So, show me the text, history and tradition of banning firearms based on the decision of an unelected official with no text of law authorizing such ban. Despite there not being a text, history or tradition of bans at all to support the constitutionality of any such ban in the first place.
Fuck off retard.
Really dude? SP already quoted the single defining case of our century pointing to the Second Amendment protecting an individuals right to bear arms. If you're going to participate, read the fucking posts you're defending by getting you nose out of his taint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I don't even agree with the Supreme Court interpretation, but even I know the case law.Quote:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER 2008
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
I honestly don’t see the big issue? So you possibly need register as a seller, to fill out some documents and check the person you’re selling to, what’s the big issue? How is this infringing on your second amendment?
It’s a small inconvenience, to make sure you’re not selling your gun to someone who shouldn’t have one.
You literally wrote that the "Well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment is referring to our government regulating firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
That does not say that the phrase "well regulated" refers to the government regulating guns.Quote:
I don't even agree with the Supreme Court interpretation, but even I know the case law.
Literally, the only person I have ever heard say that is you.
Again.. I'll add this spoiler: The Second Amendment's "well-regulated" clause historically refers to a well-trained and organized militia, not gun control for individuals. It emphasizes the importance of a citizenry capable of defending itself, rather than government regulation of firearms.
You literally just posted why it was an infringement, by using the term "inconvenience".. unless you don't understand what the word "infringe" and if that is the case, here is the appropriate definition:Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Infringe: the action of limiting or undermining something.
Now, you can argue whether or not that inconvenience is worth it in a society.. but you can't argue "how is this infringing on your second amendment" without looking foolish.
You're right, it isn't a big deal. Some people just don't like the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people if it means some extra paperwork for themselves or less money on the black market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solkern
Lol, just gonna repeat yourself verbatim without reading the answer I posted to the exact same question above? You loser.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I read your "answer" and it doesn't address your assertion that "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment means that government regulates guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
The only one here that has made that claim is you.
Please die on this retard hill.
You fucking retard.