Yes Biden. The second amendment does include AR-15s

[SottoVoce]

@Steel-W0LF

@SottoVoce

Define “well-regulated” and “arms” in unambiguous terms that are universally approved both by those at the time of the writing of the constitution and today.

thats easy…

Well Regulated: Working well, or operating as it should.
arms: the equipment of offence or defence used by the common foot soldier.

what politicians want it to mean at this time is irrelevant unless an amendment is passed.

I disagree. So do others. Courts get to decide. Or a revolution. Pick your poison.

[Smyrna]

@AZslim

Did you support the unlawful attempt overturning the election by the former guy? If so, your argument against tyranny is hilarious.

Are you talking about Comey and Rosenstein and the fake Russian collusion you regurgibleated about for 3 years in the failed attempt to over turn the 2016 election? If so, your attempt to now be righteous against tyranny is…how did you say, oh yeah…“hilarious”.

[Steel-W0LF]

@SottoVoce

@Steel-W0LF

@SottoVoce

Define “well-regulated” and “arms” in unambiguous terms that are universally approved both by those at the time of the writing of the constitution and today.

thats easy…

Well Regulated: Working well, or operating as it should.
arms: the equipment of offence or defence used by the common foot soldier.

what politicians want it to mean at this time is irrelevant unless an amendment is passed.

I disagree. So do others. Courts get to decide. Or a revolution. Pick your poison.

no, they dont…

and your party is guaranteeing that the second option you poised is where its going to go.

[SottoVoce]

@Steel-W0LF

@SottoVoce

@Steel-W0LF

@SottoVoce

Define “well-regulated” and “arms” in unambiguous terms that are universally approved both by those at the time of the writing of the constitution and today.

thats easy…

Well Regulated: Working well, or operating as it should.
arms: the equipment of offence or defence used by the common foot soldier.

what politicians want it to mean at this time is irrelevant unless an amendment is passed.

I disagree. So do others. Courts get to decide. Or a revolution. Pick your poison.

no, they dont…

and your party is guaranteeing that the second option you poised is where its going to go.

Everyone agrees with your definitions and that current interpretations are of no concern? Sure.

Whatever float the right’s boat I suppose. When do the “Give me assault weapons or give me death” bumper stickers arrive?

[PurpnGold]

@Striker840

Well-regulated” did and does mean well trained.

I would never tell my team they need to be well regulated on PowerPoint. Well trained, yes. Well informed, yes.

Regulated has a specific meaning

[johnwk2]

@SottoVoce

@johnwk2

@SottoVoce

Seems like with all other legal matters we’ll let the courts decide.

Let me break the news to you. We, the People, have already decided when ratifying our first ten amendments.

I suggest you read the Second Amendment very, very slowly. While it notes a militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the only guarantee mentioned in the Second Amendment is “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is an established right which preceded the birth of our existing Constitution, and the Second Amendment was specifically adopted as a prohibition against our federal government, which is prohibited in the enactment of federal legislation meddling with the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

The simple truth is, after creating our federal Constitution which became effective in 1789, ten amendments were quickly adopted [1791] which were intentionally designed “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of “ the new government’s “powers“ , and is so stated in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

Among those restrictive clauses is the Second Amendment prohibiting federal legislation infringing upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

JWK

In every oppressive country like communist China, socialist Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc., the people are disarmed and suffer the loss of inalienable rights under an iron fisted government which lives large on the people’s labor. Forewarned is forearmed.

False. Courts decide. Not internet message board constitutional experts.

Wrong. We, the people, have already decided such protections when ratifying our Constitution and the first ten amendments.

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

[PurpnGold]

@Steel-W0LF

Well Regulated: Working well, or operating as it should.
arms: the equipment of offence or defence used by the common foot soldier.

Correct… that’s what regulations do. If the militia is not working well… regulate it.

[SottoVoce]

@johnwk2

@SottoVoce

@johnwk2

@SottoVoce

Seems like with all other legal matters we’ll let the courts decide.

Let me break the news to you. We, the People, have already decided when ratifying our first ten amendments.

I suggest you read the Second Amendment very, very slowly. While it notes a militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the only guarantee mentioned in the Second Amendment is “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is an established right which preceded the birth of our existing Constitution, and the Second Amendment was specifically adopted as a prohibition against our federal government, which is prohibited in the enactment of federal legislation meddling with the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

The simple truth is, after creating our federal Constitution which became effective in 1789, ten amendments were quickly adopted [1791] which were intentionally designed “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of “ the new government’s “powers“ , and is so stated in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

Among those restrictive clauses is the Second Amendment prohibiting federal legislation infringing upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

JWK

In every oppressive country like communist China, socialist Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc., the people are disarmed and suffer the loss of inalienable rights under an iron fisted government which lives large on the people’s labor. Forewarned is forearmed.

False. Courts decide. Not internet message board constitutional experts.

Wrong. We, the people, have already decided such protections when ratifying our Constitution and the first ten amendments.

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

False. Article 3, section 2 says nothing about internet posters or “we, the people” when dealing with cases and controversies under the constitution. Sounds like a wild interpretation.

[fallenturtle]

@Liberty323

He knows what it means. The left wants absolute control so nobody can have any defense against tyranny.

A defense against tyranny rings hollow. The days that US citizens could have any chance at defeating the US military are long gone.

[johnwk2]

@SottoVoce

@johnwk2

@SottoVoce

@johnwk2

@SottoVoce

Seems like with all other legal matters we’ll let the courts decide.

Let me break the news to you. We, the People, have already decided when ratifying our first ten amendments.

I suggest you read the Second Amendment very, very slowly. While it notes a militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the only guarantee mentioned in the Second Amendment is “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is an established right which preceded the birth of our existing Constitution, and the Second Amendment was specifically adopted as a prohibition against our federal government, which is prohibited in the enactment of federal legislation meddling with the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

The simple truth is, after creating our federal Constitution which became effective in 1789, ten amendments were quickly adopted [1791] which were intentionally designed “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of “ the new government’s “powers“ , and is so stated in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

Among those restrictive clauses is the Second Amendment prohibiting federal legislation infringing upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

JWK

In every oppressive country like communist China, socialist Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc., the people are disarmed and suffer the loss of inalienable rights under an iron fisted government which lives large on the people’s labor. Forewarned is forearmed.

False. Courts decide. Not internet message board constitutional experts.

Wrong. We, the people, have already decided such protections when ratifying our Constitution and the first ten amendments.

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

False. Article 3, section 2 says nothing about internet posters or “we, the people” when dealing with cases and controversies under the constitution. Sounds like a wild interpretation.

We are not talking about cases and controversies or internet posters. We are talking about the people deciding, when they ratified our Constitution and its first ten amendments, that our federal government is prohibited from infringing upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

Try paying attention to documented facts as they are presented above.

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

[bigtwnvin]

You assume even if ordered the US Military will use it’s might against US citizens.

[AZslim]

@Smyrna

@AZslim

Did you support the unlawful attempt overturning the election by the former guy? If so, your argument against tyranny is hilarious.

Are you talking about Comey and Rosenstein and the fake Russian collusion you regurgibleated about for 3 years in the failed attempt to over turn the 2016 election? If so, your attempt to now be righteous against tyranny is…how did you say, oh yeah…“hilarious”.

OK, I’ll put you down for supporting the illegal overthrow of our elections.

Any defense of the constitution you offer is fake outrage.

[AZslim]

@bigtwnvin

You assume even if ordered the US Military will use it’s might against US citizens.

Some will for sure. There were many vets involved in the attempted overthrow of a legal election on 1/6/21.

[Steel-W0LF]

@PurpnGold

@Striker840

Well-regulated” did and does mean well trained.

I would never tell my team they need to be well regulated on PowerPoint. Well trained, yes. Well informed, yes.

Regulated has a specific meaning

And it had a different meaning then than now.

[conan]

[Steel-W0LF]

@SottoVoce

@Steel-W0LF

@SottoVoce

@Steel-W0LF

@SottoVoce

Define “well-regulated” and “arms” in unambiguous terms that are universally approved both by those at the time of the writing of the constitution and today.

thats easy…

Well Regulated: Working well, or operating as it should.
arms: the equipment of offence or defence used by the common foot soldier.

what politicians want it to mean at this time is irrelevant unless an amendment is passed.

I disagree. So do others. Courts get to decide. Or a revolution. Pick your poison.

no, they dont…

and your party is guaranteeing that the second option you poised is where its going to go.

Everyone agrees with your definitions and that current interpretations are of no concern? Sure.

Whatever float the right’s boat I suppose. When do the “Give me assault weapons or give me death” bumper stickers arrive?

Just because they have violated it in the past and gotten away with it is not justification for violating it again without amendment.

[bigtwnvin]

The “overthrow of a legal election” is a Dimbulbcrat progressive media talking point. The election results were a foregone conclusion dontcha think?
Those who participated in the Jan 6th? Plenty of lies associated with that ■■■■ show too.

[conan]

Precisely…it was a message. And it scared the ■■■■ out of goverment thugs.

Never mind they’re holding people without trial or even bail.

[JimmyC]

The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

[johnwk2]

@JimmyC

The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

As I pointed out before:

Our Founders intended ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms [a contemporary fire arm used by foot soldiers] so they would be ready and able to defend themselves against a despotic government if necessary. The AR-15-semi is a civilian version of the United States military’s M16 and ought to be kept by ordinary citizens to defend against a tyrannical government if necessary. Forewarned is forearmed.

JWK

“Guns? What for?..to fight the government? The Cuban people don’t need guns nowadays!” (Fidel Castro during his very first speech upon entering Havana Jan. 8, 1959.)