I have reached that conclusion too. In the Army I learned that you never complained about anything unless you had a possible solution to present at the same time. Some folks just whine and complain here, constantly finding fault but never offering anything for solution or even improvement. Whining without anything constructive to add is a waste of time... so I wait and wait to see if they have anything at all constructive to say. If all they ever do is whine and complain... I put them on ignore.
I don’t actually use ignore. But I think from now on, when I want to boycott someone (and ask everyone else to do as well) I will just say, “well bless your heart”
No, it’s not legislation. It’s the Supreme Court of The United States ruling on the meaning or OUR Constitution which is their job and, responsibility, as defined in The Constitution.
In actuality, there really doesn’t even need to be a 2nd amendment. Since the USGov is limited to only the power delegated in 1:8, and none of those powers have anything to do with arms, the 2nd amendment is entirely superfluous.
Redundant. But! That it is part of The Bill of Rights underscores the Founders underlying fear of tyranny.
true-until we had incorporation with the fourteenth. that is when the second became so important. if the FDR supreme court had not rolled over and peed on itself when FDR threatened to pack it, we never would have had any of the unconstitutional nonsense like the 1934 NFA or the equally bogus GCA of 68
and JFK was an NRA member and HHH was more Pro Gun than Tricky Dick. Not relevant these days. The NRA objected to the original goal of FDR to ban or seriously restrict handguns. Sadly, they didn't know what the Democrats really were up to
I think FDR pushed the law and his minions went along with him. FDR was the pimp in chief when it came to pandering
I think you’re wrong. FDR was a paramount politician. But I don’t think you can blame him anymore than any other politician of that era for the NFA.
are you familiar with what the USSC was doing to his violations of the tenth amendment before he threatened to pack the court? who do you blame for the rape of the tenth amendment and crapping upon the second amendment?
He and his wife got us through very difficult times. It’s too bad, IMHO, that it’s become fashionable for the right to nitpick and denigrate his imperfections and refuse to acknowledge all the good he accomplished. <-that’s all I have to say about it.
You're conflating two separate issues. The Second Amendment was intended as an assurance that the militia would be armed. It says nothing one way or the other about the use of guns for private purposes.
wrong-it was a negative restriction on a government that was not given any power in the first place -it was something to assure the anti federalist. WTF do you think THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED MEANS?
I disagree. he amputated limbs in order to remove minor lesions and the fools claimed he cured a skin blemish.
I'm only interested in what they agreed on and PASSED after the votes of the several states. Not interested in what any individual founders "thought" but didn't pass.
Bullcrap. In this thread you advocate powers of congress that were not delegated to congress by The People. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ So don't you claim to be interested in Democracy. You clearly want to usurp the will of The People by adding to the scope of government without explicit permission through a constitutional amendment- you know, like when congress gave themselves the power to steal from the rich to give to the poor, or when congress gave themselves the power to prohibit possession of "contraband" like drugs, or to make you register your fertilizer.
Heller is legislation because Scalia used historical and linguistic arguments to justify it that the most prominent historians and linguists in the country have proven to be complete nonsense detached from reality and from the two sciences. And their reasoning is explained in these four threads. Therefore, it is proper to say that Scalia and the justices who voted for Heller LEGISLATED from the bench. The fact that Scalia felt the need to resort to bogus linguistics and historical arguments indicates that any other arguments he or anybody else might have were insufficient. The linguistics and historical arguments that Scalia made up are debunked in these four threads. So anybody who believes they can counter these linguists and historians can do so topic by topic. However, Heller (and any court decisions that rely on Heller) IS The Law of the Land right now. This is the reason why I can properly say that Heller IS "legislation passed by the Supreme Court".
can you find anyone-I repeat ANYONE-from that era who supports your revisionist version of what you claim the second amendment means?
did you feel the same way about the idiocy of the FDR administration and crap like Wickard v Filburn?
