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.
Where is the limitation?
Them’s fightin’ words in Alabama, no?
Even if you grant the moron his assumption, at this point there is obviously to much, so it needs to be rolled back.
Woodshed meet Jones. Jones; woodshed.
Now son, listen carefully because I only want to have to say this one time, gun control is all about hitting your target with accuracy, efficiency, and speed. Got it? Good.
Now let me never hear you speak of this again.
Yes, and so do laws protecting women and minorities.
We can simply ignore them about 40% of the time, since that's okay when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Yes, there are limitations on the 2nd amendment.
It begins with your bodyguards
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Now please explain in CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE, just what those limitations might be.
.
Keep on talking Doug!
Sink your own ship so we won’t have to do it for you.
.
The question is what does the 2nd Amendment guarantee to each citizen and where is the line drawn as to what Congress is required to authorize?
To me the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. If you look at some of the early State Constitutions they talk about the right to keep and bear arms in protection of oneself and the State. So when the State Delegates went to the Constitutional Convention, some of they were not thinking about just a militia as in a military organization.
There is a gray area between what is a “right” under the Bill of Rights and what is granted by Congress. Do I think private ownership of nuclear weapons is a good idea? Nope. Do I think that private ownership of crew served weapons is a good idea or a right under the Bill of Rights? Not really, but we are getting close to the line on anything much less than a crew served weapon.
So, currently Congress has this cute definition of “National Firearms Act” weapons. NFA weapons are: machine guns, sound suppressors (a.k.a. silencers), short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, destructive devices and “any other weapons”. Exactly what these weapons are is defined in the law, as well as in court cases interpreting the law.
Do I think that an RPG is an “arm” under the Bill of Rights? How about a hand grenade? My answer is maybe. Do I think that a military looking semi-automatic, large capacity magazine rifle is an arm under the Bill of Rights? Heck yes! How about a crew served heavy machine gun? Possibly not.
Then again, we have 3 branches of government to sort this out.
So why this governor wanna be might think there are limits to the 2nd Amendment, I would wager we would draw the limits a lot differently.
Whenever these people start talking about “common sense” or “smart” laws, you can kiss some more of your freedom goodbye.
Well, yes, they did mean SANE people, but the phrase, "the right keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is very clear.
The most important thing the Second Amendment accomplishes to me is that it makes one hell of a deterrent against government tyranny.
Another RAT politician who sees the Bill of Rights ass the Bill of Suggestions. I will bet money that his comments are not going to be well-received by the Alabama voters.
Every law respecting arms is unConstitutional. The Second is absolute “shall not be infringed” means it cannot be limited. That means every American, hell, everybody in America has the unlimited right to possess and carry any arms. The only possible limitation possible Constitutionally is the Involuntary Servitude wording in the 13th Amendment and only applies to actual criminal prisoners while they are prisoners. What the 2nd does not recognize as a right is the USE of arms for criminal purposes. Murder thus is a legitimate crime if there is a law against murder. Possessing the gun that was used to commit the murder cannot be a crime under the Constitution.