What is the primary reason you support Trump?

so it is your learned belief that the first clause somehow reduces or limits the negative restriction on the federal government-a government that was never given any powers to interfere with private citizens owning, bearing possessing, keeping, using or carrying arms in Article One Section Eight? I don't see any limitation or reduction of this: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. do you?

 

So anyone should be able to walk into a store and buy a fully automatic weapon if they want?

 

you are engaging in a frivolous argument that has no merit but its typical of leftist gun banners who want to pretend that the founders didn't support private citizens being armed. You engage in the dishonest argument that this negative restriction on the federal government is somehow only applicable when those asserting the right are in active duty. That is so blatantly idiotic I laugh and it is blatantly contrary to known reality concerning how a militia operated at that time

 

And that's so that they can bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" .

You are either extremely uneducated or trolling.

 

yeah, if they are of age and a lawful citizen. I don't see anything in the constitution that allows the federal government to ban that-do you? and I love how leftist gun banners are so terrified of automatic weapons. It's one of those litmus tests to see if someone actually understands firearms. Now banning crew served belt fed automatic weapons at a federal level is a tenth amendment issue. Banning hand held individually bearable automatics like an M4 Carbine or a Swedish K SMG or a browning Automatic Rifle-that's both a tenth and 2nd amendment issue. at the state level its a second amendment issue

 

What jurisdiction are you licensed to practice law Mitty because I know no one with a legal education who is honest would make such a silly argument. Why don't you (I need the laugh) tell us what YOU think the second amendment protects

1) private arms of any citizen
2) private arms of someone who is eligible to serve in the organized or unorganized militia
3) someone who is actually in active federal military service

 

so it is your belief that the founders thought the federal government could ban anyone who was not in active service from owning firearms? Please show me that language in Article One Section Eight

 

You are engaging in a frivolous argument which is blatantly idiotic, given that the second amendment clearly says "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms in a well regulated militia shall not be infringed

 

Doesn't change the fact that the second amendment is about bearing arms in a well regulated militia since there was no regular professional army in which to bear arms when it was written in 1791.

 

Doesn't change the fact that the second amendment is about bearing arms in a well regulated militia since there was no regular professional army in which to bear arms when it was written in 1791, even though the NRA and gun-worshippers totally ignore it, and claim that children have a right to own and use pink and blue Crickett guns, and in order for the fire-arms' industry to sell more and more combat style weapons to the gun-worshippers in Planet America.

 

Do you own a pink or blue Crickett gun, and do you take it to school?

 

At the time of the Constitution there was no such thing as "active service". After the Revolutionary War the Continental Army was disbanded because the founders distrusted standing armies. The idea was that able bodied men of the states would serve as part of a "well regulated militia" to provide defense if needed. Since such militias were voluntary and the government was not providing arms. It was necessary that those in the militia be able to bear their own personal arms.

 

He's not Biden.

 

OK well I know which one you are. Thank you for your comment.

 

why do you misrepresent what the amendment says? are you so worried that your frivolous argument is seen as worthless that you cannot even quote the second accurately?

I don't know what is a bigger joke-your lack of understanding of what a militia is or what the second amendment actually says

 

no lie. and there is nothing whatsoever that suggested that the founders did not want private citizens able to keep own use and possess firearms

 

your pathetic arguments have hit rock bottom

you now apparently have obtained a steam shovel

 

why are you unable to honestly discuss what the second means and why are you obsessed with children owning pink guns and why do you hate the arms industry? I know why-because those who make firearms tend to oppose the creeping crud of communism and related cancers that gun banners seek to foist on our nation

 

your silly arguments are sounding like a parrot with tourette's . you misrepresent arguments presented to you because you can't actually rebut them

 

Have you ever actually read what the second amendment actually says, and that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms in a well regulated militia shall not be infringed

 

And have you ever had a mass shooting at your school?

 

you are dishonestly misrepresenting what the second amendment says. it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. it doesn't say the crap you made up

 

But the second amendment was about the need to be able to bear arms in "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

 

what relevance does that have? it appears that since you have figured out that your arguments are worthless, you are now trying to appeal to emotion.

 

rejected as fraudulent. find a single supreme court case that supports your blatant fiction