Just looking at it from a leftist's perspective with a smidge of sarcasm.gut;1516230 wrote:Really not the best endorsement
You had entirely too much thought into that to imitate liberal logicbeliever;1516231 wrote:Just looking at it from a leftist's perspective with a smidge of sarcasm.
1. Unclench.I Wear Pants;1516093 wrote:The 2nd Amendment says that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership or the types of guns people are allowed?
Wait... you're gay?I Wear Pants;1516093 wrote:The 2nd Amendment says that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership or the types of guns people are allowed?
Have you actually read the 2nd Amendment? If so you would realize that the "shall not be infringed" part is exactly what you just said "no restrictions".I Wear Pants;1516093 wrote:The 2nd Amendment says that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership or the types of guns people are allowed?
Okay if we're going to take it literally then I assume you're part of a well-regulated militia?believer;1516229 wrote:For open-minded and enlightened liberals, wording in the Constitution is subject to broad interpretation and not to be taken literally. It is a living, breathing document written by the original Tea Party (a bunch of bigoted slave-owning gray haired white males) over 226 years ago.
Did you miss the commas in the amendment?I Wear Pants;1516322 wrote:Okay if we're going to take it literally then I assume you're part of a well-regulated militia?
jmog;1516374 wrote:Did you miss the commas in the amendment?
A comma, in the English language, typically indicates that multiple things are included like multiple subjects to a sentence like "Bob, Jane, and Bill ran down the street".
In the case of the 2nd Amendment, both the right to form a militia AND the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does NOT say that you can only bear arms if you are in a militia.
I know the English language is the toughest to fully comprehend the grammar structure, but come on we learn what commas are for early in grade school.
"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.[SUP]"
[/SUP]
I mean, that's pretty clear. The RIGHT of the PEOPLE. We are the people.the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
All fundamental rights can be regulated when there is a compelling public interest for doing so.jmog;1516269 wrote:Have you actually read the 2nd Amendment? If so you would realize that the "shall not be infringed" part is exactly what you just said "no restrictions".
You noticed that no one said "boo" about your full of $H!T meme, why? Because this is supposed to be memes only. No butt hurt responses.
Hahaha +1TedSheckler;1516396 wrote:
Please indicate where I said that there have NEVER been laws "infringing" on the rights? I just stated what the 2nd Amendment said, nothing more, nothing less.BoatShoes;1516393 wrote:All fundamental rights can be regulated when there is a compelling public interest for doing so.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson coauthored a bill in the Virginia Legislature that would've limited individuals from carrying long guns outside of their homes when it wasn't hunting season unless they were on active duty militia.
Their fellow contemporary in the Virginia Legislature, Isaac Shelby, went on to become the first governor of Kentucky and then in his second go around was the first to sign a law outlawing concealed firearms in 1813 while James Madison was president and he didn't say a word about it.
All of these men were Democratic-Republicans....AKA the original tea partiers.
Nevermind of course all of the southern states that outlawed free black men from carrying firearms in those early days.
All fundamental rights are subject to reasonable regulation when there's a compelling interest for doing so and the founding fathers and their contemporaries regularly provided support for the notion that these rights may be regulated.
Back to memes:
So no regulations are allowed? You think the constitution prohibits a law saying that everyone can't have an M-249?justincredible;1516385 wrote:I mean, that's pretty clear. The RIGHT of the PEOPLE. We are the people.
I Wear Pants;1516406 wrote:So no regulations are allowed? You think the constitution prohibits a law saying that everyone can't have an M-249?
Where is the outrage that I can't openly carry a LMG?
The potential of a well-regulated militia is the justification. Not a stipulation.I Wear Pants;1516322 wrote:Okay if we're going to take it literally then I assume you're part of a well-regulated militia?
So, they infringed. Point?BoatShoes;1516393 wrote:All fundamental rights can be regulated when there is a compelling public interest for doing so.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson coauthored a bill in the Virginia Legislature that would've limited individuals from carrying long guns outside of their homes when it wasn't hunting season unless they were on active duty militia.
Their fellow contemporary in the Virginia Legislature, Isaac Shelby, went on to become the first governor of Kentucky and then in his second go around was the first to sign a law outlawing concealed firearms in 1813 while James Madison was president and he didn't say a word about it.
All of these men were Democratic-Republicans....AKA the original tea partiers.
Nevermind of course all of the southern states that outlawed free black men from carrying firearms in those early days.
All fundamental rights are subject to reasonable regulation when there's a compelling interest for doing so and the founding fathers and their contemporaries regularly provided support for the notion that these rights may be regulated.
Baby steps, IWP. Baby steps.I Wear Pants;1516406 wrote:So no regulations are allowed? You think the constitution prohibits a law saying that everyone can't have an M-249?
Where is the outrage that I can't openly carry a LMG?
So, if the law was to only make legal single-shot, muzzle-loaded blunderbusses, that wouldn't be infringement?queencitybuckeye;1516445 wrote:Nowhere does it say anything that should be construed as "any and all arms". The idea that you can't own a bazooka is not an infringement, as not allowing you to own it does not infringe on your right to bear arms.
If one is to take the absolute position here, it follows that you DO have a right to yell "fire" in a theatre.
O-Trap;1516468 wrote:
So, they infringed. Point?
superman;1516163 wrote:What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult for you?
jmog;1516403 wrote:Please indicate where I said that there have NEVER been laws "infringing" on the rights? I just stated what the 2nd Amendment said, nothing more, nothing less.
Stop playing coy.jmog;1516269 wrote:Have you actually read the 2nd Amendment? If so you would realize that the "shall not be infringed" part is exactly what you just said "no restrictions".
You noticed that no one said "boo" about your full of $H!T meme, why? Because this is supposed to be memes only. No butt hurt responses.
BoatShoes;1516494 wrote:Stop playing coy.