If that was the case, felons wouldn't be prohibited persons.But 2A says you can break any law just to exercise your rights.
But 2A says you can break any law just to exercise your rights.
Is that how lying sacks of shit describe running away, running for your life against a rioting lynch mob?
It will always be self defense no matter how many lies are told about it.
people with Domestic Violence restraining orders just regained the right to own guns while on trial
MSN
www.msn.com
he 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the ban on weapons in this context "is an outlier that our ancestors would have never accepted"
There's an odd physical similarity between this guy and George Santos.
Fascinating where this is going to go. The Supreme's "history and tradition" theory seems to be giving rise to a cruder form in the lower courts. Be interesting to see how far the Supreme Court is prepared to run with this more version of their sophistry.
Essentially the US is henceforth to return to the cultural and political norms of the 18th century.
Your 'ancestors' would not have accepted a lot of things, including the abolition of slavery or a woman's right to own property. But I guess the real biggies are safe because you already fought a civil war over them and thus managed to get them into that Constitution. But everything else is apparently now to be rolled-back 300 years or so.
The message is, if you want to progress in any way beyond the 18th century, you need to first ensure millions die in a war over it, so you can get it into that wretched document, that strangles hope like a ligature around the neck of democracy.
No other means of progress is acceptable to the kritarchy.
It's not a lie to say that no one would have died that night if Rittenhouse wasn't there.Is that how lying sacks of shit describe running away, running for your life against a rioting lynch mob?
It will always be self defense no matter how many lies are told about it.
Only so far as it supports their political agenda. As soon as someone tries to use those same arguments for something that is not a part of their agenda those arguments will suddenly no longer be persuasive.Be interesting to see how far the Supreme Court is prepared to run with this more version of their sophistry.
No the message is that they come up with the judgement they want then look for an excuse for it instead of judging the cases on any sort of consistent legal theory. Next time it might be some other legal theory that fits their political agenda, and traditionalism (or whatever they are trying to call this theory) will no longer apply.The message is, if you want to progress in any way beyond the 18th century, you need to first ensure millions die in a war over it, so you can get it into that wretched document, that strangles hope like a ligature around the neck of democracy.