I would hope the Federalist Papers would come into play here. If intent were discussed regarding the Second Amendment, I would hope that it would be taken into consideration.
Private gun ownership is the great equalizer. No individual need be afraid, if they are able to defend their home and family. That’s all gun owners ask. And I believe it is a basic right for them to ask it.
There’a new show this fall on NBC. It’s somewhat of a silly program, named ‘Chuck’. One of the key players had a shirt on this evening that said, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” We’ve all seen that phrase before, but it was great to see it on the tube.
We all know that honest citizens are at the mercy of the Supreme Court. If the court allows it, the states will soon disarm us. And when that happens, we will be the helpless prey of criminals. They will be armed. We will not.
Our nation is on the line here. Every community’s safety in in the hands of the Supreme Court. If they take European laws into account on this one, heaven help us.
At issue are the words of the Second Ammendment.
Our language has been manipulated to say what isn't is, and what is, isn't.
I often try to explain this with the slang, "That's a bad set of wheels" .. where 'bad' is 'good'.
We were warned ...
Isaiah 5:20 ... "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil .... "
Read all of Chapter 5 .... better yet ... read, and believe ... the Bible.
“Intent/Understanding of the ratifiers” of the Constitution, ie, it’s “true meaning”,
hasn’t been used since the Marshall Court. The judges’ particular social whims have been substituted.
However, you know when the other side seeks a “balance” or a “compromise” that they know they’re in a weaker position.