Did he go to law school?
It's going to be a big laugh on Judgment Day when the Democrats stand before God and lecture Him on what The Law is. This will happen just seconds before they are cast into the Lake of Fire.
Posted on 05/25/2022 7:32:14 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
His sanity isn’t absolute, either.
Actually you could own an entire battleship outfitted with a dozen cannons.
That is just your opinion, Joey.
.
His Son lied on a Federal Firearms application - and nothing came of it.
If the Republicans don’t bring this up, roll up the streets.
The Level of hypocrisy is overwhelming!
Shut up Biden with his lawless family.
.
No we do not. The right to keep (own, possess, and control control) and bear (carry anywhere anytime) shall not be infringed (no law may prevent). Read the Federalist Papers, they explain the Bill of Rights very clearly.
The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution. The collection was commonly known as The Federalist until the name The Federalist Papers emerged in the 20th century.
I think we should all buy cannons now.
“No we do not.”
Then why did you attempt it by applying the words “own, possess, and control” to “right to keep” and the words “carry anywhere anytime” to the word “bear”?
What is the scope, the extent of the right to keep and bear arms?
As to “no law may prevent”, would a law prohibiting an adult giving a loaded firearm to a 3 year old be an infringement? Or would that be within the scope of the right of the people to keep and bear arms because the 3 year old is one of “the people”?
What about someone who carries in hand, with finger in the trigger guard, a loaded, cocked single action revolver with a hair trigger while in a crowd? Is such activity always included in the right to keep and bear arms? Would a law prohibiting such activity absent immediate need be an infringement?
Again, read the Federalist Papers and also reference a dictionary in use during the Revolutionary War.
Did he go to law school?
It's going to be a big laugh on Judgment Day when the Democrats stand before God and lecture Him on what The Law is. This will happen just seconds before they are cast into the Lake of Fire.
I pretty much agree with him!
Yes, the 2nd Should be absolute but we
... The people have Allowed thousands of infringements on it!
How is that absolute?
I wish it weren’t so but how can we deny destruction already brought on the amendment!?
Once guns have been taken away from the criminals as well as the law abiding, you will see criminals spraying gasoline on their victims and touching them off.
No biggie, we all do it.
It is, and you’re mortal, jackass.
“”The Second Amendment is not absolute. “
This is an Obama era talking point. When confronted by constitutional limits, Obama used the “constitution is not absolute” meme. He called his critics “absolutists” Actually, the 2A phrase that bearings arms shall not be infringed is absolutely absolute.
F Joe is on a broken loop. He just repeats the same stupid talking points like a broken talking doll.
“...When it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon...”
Yes, but a citizen could own and carry a musket which was the standard issue for the continental army. It’s why we have an entity called the “unorganized militia”, which has as it’s members, ALL able-bodied American men over the age of 18.
The unorganized militia is there for a purpose. I’m looking at all you Mr. Politicians with visions of grandeur! /spit
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with actions that take place in a “Gun-Free Zone”.
“Again, read the Federalist Papers and also reference a dictionary in use during the Revolutionary War.”
I don’t find in the Federalist Papers something that defines or states the scope and extent of the right to keep and bear arms. Since you find it, please point it out for me. The Federalist Papers are here:
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the mid to late 1700’s, in the third definition down under “noun n.s.”, defines a right as a “just claim”, a definition that seems most relevant here. This may be found here:
https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=right
Noah Webster’s Dictionary of 1828, in the tenth definition down, also defines a right as a “just claim”, which again seems most relevant here. This may be found here:
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/right
Considering what the above definitions imply: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” means “The just claim of the people to keep and bear arms”. In turn that implies there may be an unjust claim, a false claim. For example, one may make a claim to keep and bear a stolen firearm based on the right to keep and bear arms but all else being equal that would be an unjust claim and the firearm should be returned to the rightful owner. I don’t see that a law prohibiting the keeping and carrying of a stolen firearm would normally be an infringement.
I’m not exactly happy with the above definitions but there they are. The left will do everything they can to frame the right to keep and bear arms in an unjust light and we must fight that. I believe that to do so we must promote a better understanding of the right rather than just shouting “Shall not be infringed”. We don’t need to convince those on The Right, and we can’t convince those who support the Far Left, but there are a lot of people in the middle.
It is not absolute.
I can’t walk into Cabelas and buy an assault weapon. It’s illegal.
Only those who join the Army get them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.