Shall not be infringed . . . or even seriously thought about . . . ever
- Thread starter HHusky
- Start date
Some people have never read this or dont really understand what it means..it's the opening to our "Declaration of Independence"
I highly recommend everyone to take a moment and refresh your memory, because it is directly relative to this silly debate over the 2As protection of individual rights of gun ownership especially when the president said you would need F16s to fight the government..
Don't worry, I will make the most important part bold so you cant miss it
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.[/b]
You can read the rest here.....https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
I highly recommend everyone to take a moment and refresh your memory, because it is directly relative to this silly debate over the 2As protection of individual rights of gun ownership especially when the president said you would need F16s to fight the government..
Don't worry, I will make the most important part bold so you cant miss it
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.[/b]
You can read the rest here.....https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
Not authoritarian
http://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1641145935265779712?t=U4qqlvb3hwW3ry_Gfsj-hw&s=19
By the way she's an alki. In case you missed it she was caught drunk driving and it was swept under the rug
Explains a lot
http://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1641145935265779712?t=U4qqlvb3hwW3ry_Gfsj-hw&s=19
By the way she's an alki. In case you missed it she was caught drunk driving and it was swept under the rug
Explains a lot
lol
Scalia > HHusky
And I didn't even have to go to law school to understand this.
The structure of the Second Amendment has invited decades of dueling interpretations. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service.
Scalia pointed out that the amendment refers to "the right of the people." When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone. Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase bear arms cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent.
Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, explored the relationship between the prefatory and operative clauses of the Second Amendment in a 1998 New York University Law Review article that helped lay the groundwork for Heller. While such prefatory phrases were unusual in the U.S. Constitution, Volokh noted, they were common enough in state constitutions that their function can be elucidated by considering how those documents were understood.
Volokh cited dozens of state constitutional provisions from the founding era that used a similar structure: a prefatory clause stating a purpose, followed by a statement of a right. These provisions covered, among other things, freedom of speech, freedom from unjustified searches and seizures, and the right to be tried for a crime in the county where the crime was committed. In such cases, Volokh said, no one could reasonably argue that "only when a judge has concluded that exercising the right furthers the prefatory purpose does the right exist."
This right here> enforce what's on the books
How is it that a bright legal mind such as your own has been wrong multiple times in the last 20 years? Every major gun case that shows before the Supreme Court has an interpretation 180 out from your own deluded perspective? You get presented MANY quotes attributed to MANY FFs and you still persist in thinking you are correct, when ALL factual evidence says you are wrong. This isn't me wishing gun ownership to be an individual right it to be true. I do not have to wish. The facts are overwhelmingly on my side. But, I guess you have your feelings, which is nice. Good for you.
TurdBomber
Active poster
Bowman's a conceited attention whore, nothing more.
TurdBomber
Active poster
@HeilHusky still doesn't get it....
One would think a person with 4 degrees could read basic English, but nah.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life[/b], Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/i]
Some nutjob with a machete or a sewed on penis isn't going to infringe on my unalienable right to life.
Will defend that ultimate unalienable right through any and all means.
Chitty chitty bang bang, motherfucker.
Maybe she should have a few before her press conferences and lighten up.
HHusky
Active poster
You gals could have used Gouverneur Morris, who actually did say something to support your version of Founders' intent. Unforced error on your part.
But being the ignorant rabble you are, you attempt to prove your point with bunch a bunch of statements that actually prove you and the Dago judiciary (dead and living) totally wrong, as well as the words of multiple Englishmen.
But you're willing to declare victory, and as our recent elections prove, that's all that really matters.
Carry on, ladies. I know you will.
Last edited:
Look at Dazzler go.
No shit, dumbfuck.
Fuck off.