Posted on 02/05/2024 12:02:45 PM PST by DallasBiff
Historians have found themselves caught in the middle of America's debate over gun control ever since the Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that firearms laws must be consistent with American "tradition."
That decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen set off a new wave of challenges to state and federal restrictions on guns.
"What's happening now is a fight over what the Second Amendment ultimately means," says Chuck Michel, president and general counsel at the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which is suing the state over newly passed limits on concealed firearms. "This truly is a historic time for Second Amendment jurisprudence."
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
i wonder what the actual amendment says... hmmm
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
the left not so much .... see how that could work?
The right to bare Taylor Smith shall not be infringed?
That picture pegged my soydar.
“What’s happening now is a fight over what the Second Amendment ultimately means,”
It’s in plain fricking English.
Only a Chardonnay swilling beta cuck male who couldn’t get an erection if he filled the entire trunk of his Chevy Volt with Viagra and took it all at once would have trouble understanding it.
Oh look! You found one.
L
Taylor Swift...
For an NPR article that was almost even handed.
NPR “National Public Radio”
Also known as “Public Radio International” (spoken with a smug French accent)
All Leftist Slime.
there has been written several books on the 2nd Amendment. My personal favorite is SENATE REPORT ON THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS by the US Government Printing office, 1982. It is now out of print and highly suppressed.
Hard to find an on line copy but I did. It also has counter arguments to it’s pro-gun stance.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
I still have my old paper copy.
Such a girly man.
They can’t process the simple phrase “shall not be infringed”, can they?
There’s no actual debate over the history. There was basically no gun control at all until the mid 19th century when the first gun control laws were passed......against Blacks only.
Go ahead and let the gun grabbers try to approvingly cite those as precedent. LOL!
tl;dr: Leftists are looking for other leftists with history degrees who will dig up obscure texts that they can bend into reasons to defy Bruen and do lawfare against 2A.
See also: repurposing 1919 flu regulations to mean shutting down the whole economy; bending civil war texts to try and jail Trump.
The Bill of Rights means what it says.
And the history of gun control is racist.
Since the supremes have also determined that the police have no obligation to protect us, we refuse to be disarmed & unable to defend ourselves.
“They can’t process the simple phrase “shall not be infringed”, can they?”
And many on our side can’t process the words “The Right”.
If an instance of “keeping and bearing” doesn’t fall within “the right”, a law against it isn’t an infringement. They will argue that whatever they want a law against isn’t within “the right” so the law isn’t an infringement.
What instance of "keeping and bearing" does NOT fall within "the right"? Criminal USE of arms by some cannot negate the right of others to possess and carry them!
It should read,”Hi, my name is Karen. I am the last in line of anatomical sphincters. I live in a gun free zone.”
‘What instance of “keeping and bearing” does NOT fall within “the right”? ‘
That would depend on the definition of “the right”. My point is that we don’t pay enough attention to that. If we let the other side define it we will be caught short.
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.