Pity all the people who die in accidental shootings not me. That was what the gun industry lobbied about back in the 70's. There was a study that came out saying people were safer without a gun because of the accidental shooting and the industry freaked out and lobbied congress to kill all research into such things.
Thank God the citizens of West Virginia can now rest just a bit more comfortable in the knowledge that their untrained neighbors will be packing heat without jumping through any of those frustrating bureaucratic hoops. After all, more guns = more safety; and that's a fact.
Pity all the people who die in accidental shootings not me. That was what the gun industry lobbied about back in the 70's. There was a study that came out saying people were safer without a gun because of the accidental shooting and the industry freaked out and lobbied congress to kill all research into such things.
Anyways, hail satan.
For gun manufacturers.
I live in a legal open carry and concealed carry state. People dont walk around pulling guns out and/or shooting people. Amazing I know.
So a militia is "the whole people"? Then why didn't the framers just say well regulated people? Did they mean back then to exclude black people from that amendment? After all were not black people counted as property?
Absolutely! As long as they're 21 or older, have no felonies for violent behavior, and aren't associated with a gang, just like everyone else.
Except.WV.is.not.in.the.South. lmaoI lust for southerner death. Let the blood flow.
Then you must live in a cave in the Superstition Mountains, because it happens almost daily here in AZ.
That would be why there is a comma and then the words "The right of the people..... shall not be infringed". It doesn't say the right of the militia it specifically says the right of the people. Any other part of the Bill of Rights that you think that the phrase "the right of the people" really means the rights of the government?
Bigoted poems are great, so funny! Give us one about black people. :awe:
Except.WV.is.not.in.the.South. lmao
I guess I'd worry less about Cletus and more about Democrats.
**said bogus map**
*After further review, taking down what appears to be a bogus map*
Except.WV.is.not.in.the.South. lmao
It was to defend the Nation, because there was no Military. It wasn't because it was Cool to own a gun.
And do you know what the recent Harvard study declared on this subject?
I doubt it was just as "uncool" to hide stuff from the government either but in that amendment its universally accepted that the "right of the people" actually means the people and not the government.
I wander why those hacks didn't write "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" instead of completely fucking it up like they did?
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
The 2nd Amendment is not changing. GTFO of the USA if you're scared of average Americans carrying guns.
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim "that the Second Amendment ... codified a pre-existing right," ante, at 19 [refers to page 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.
The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves"
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
When judges are not interpreting, they’re creating, and to understand judicial creation one must understand first of all the concept of “priors.” Priors are what we bring to a new question before we’ve had a chance to do research on it. They are attitudes, presuppositions derived from upbringing, from training, from personal and career experience, from religion and national origin and character and ideology and politics. They are unavoidable tools of decision-making in nontechnical fields, such as law, which is both nontechnical and analytically weak, in the sense that there are no settled principles for resolving the most difficult and consequential legal controversies. The tools I am calling priors can in principle and sometimes in practice be overridden by evidence. But often they are impervious to evidence, being deeply embedded in what we are, and that is plainly true of judging — not in every case but in cases that can’t be resolved by interpretation or some other decision-making tool that everyone understands and uses in an identical way.
The priors that seem to exert the strongest influence on present-day Supreme Court justices are political ideology and attitudes toward religion.