It's irrelevant. You are the one making a claim for infringement of our RKBA due to the Preamble of the Constitution. This is not an operative clause, but prefatory. This lack of basic reading skills is self evident...
Your supposition seems a bit confused, for I have said nothing about upholding a status quo...
Which only points out the fact that you have no idea what "status quo" means. Because you just got done saying...
for what we have is, and what you wish for "isn't."
Ugh... what a dumbass. I can hardly wait until you kids go back to school.
...and that "being on the dole" is not the one intemded by the Founders; ...
Nor did they intend for prefatory clauses to be used as operative clauses. The Preamble has no force in law. Art 1 Sec 8 does. That is why liberals scumbags normally have problems with the "militia" clause of the Second Amendment as well. It doesn't make them, or you, right. But I'm sure it makes them feel clever.
Article 1 Section 8
Actually, your are thinking Art 6 para 2. That is the clause that makes the Bill of rights apply. Later, the 14th add "privileges and immunities". The First stands on it's own and contains several operative clauses.
You really might want to go back and sign up for a remedial English Comp course. If you don't, you will never get that High School diploma...
Which only points out the fact that you have no idea what "status quo" means. Because you just got done saying... (Dead Corpse)
for what we have is, and what you wish for "isn't." (imardmd1)
Ugh... what a dumbass. I can hardly wait until you kids go back to school. (Dead Corpse)
Ah, let's see, back in 1950-52 when I took two years of Latin, what "status quo" meant was "the existing state of affairs"; or, to wit, in my quaint colloquialism, "what is, is."
If, now, "status quo" has been redefined from what I learned, and you have some insight on what that new definition is, perhaps you would share it with me to show what a dumbass I am? Please do.
It's irrelevant. You are the one making a claim for infringement of our RKBA due to the Preamble of the Constitution. This is not an operative clause, but prefatory. This lack of basic reading skills is self evident... (Dead Corpse)
I don't think that I have mentioned anything about infringing the rights verbalized in the Second Amendment.
Now, IIRC (and correct me if I am wrong), it is a State Court (not a Federal Court) by recommendation of a licensed psychiatrist which orders the involuntary commitment of an individual into a secure psychiatric facility.
Such a person has been adjudged of being deranged, or capable of reversion to derangement; unless recertified as fit by recommendation of a licensed psychiatrist and Court Order. Now, Federal Gun Laws prohibit such a person during or after release from contact with firearms or ammo.
(1) Show me how this is infringement of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
(2) Answer me: Is a Federal law prohibiting such a person from firearms and ammo a bad law or a good law?
(3) Does such a law serve the interests and Constitutional protection of the general population?
Thank you.