Second Amendment Explained

bds said:

+1. And justices living longer goes both ways if conservative justices are appointed.

And don't forget, the US Constitution can always be amended for the SCOTUS justices to more "clearly" interpret.

Click to expand...

bds said:

Just as liberal left got liberal judges appointed, the conservative right can get conservative judges appointed using the same process.

It's time to reverse the tide.

Click to expand...

Crawdad1 said:

Good old ABC news, spewing fake news where ever they go. That's why the Democrats have so much power, they can say anything they want, make any claim they want and then hide behind their huge media complex that they know will never challenge them or hold them to account.

Click to expand...

Dog Soldier said:

Keep in mind President Trump has not spent his life as a Parasitic Politician. He has made Billions employees 20,000 and paid for his own campaign. He does not take his salary as President. He is a lion out of the Gage and owes no one.
The media did not elect them. He can pursue Pro-Gun positions without bowing down to powerful editors and TV Communications.

Click to expand...

fpgt72 said:

You are correct.....and this is why we need to challenge them.....for the first time we have an R in the white house....and I call him an R in name only as R's are partly to blame for the mess we are in.....and he is going to call them on it.

The people are seeing the truth behind the "media" and trump is calling them out on it. We need to stay on them.....talk to these people (D's supporters) and say....no that is not quite correct....here is the real deal....and here is the actual bit of the executive order that says what was just signed.

Like our little forum here.....you need to take the high road with these people.....they have really been brain washed by a lifetime of public schools, college, and media telling them just how horrid every R idea is.....and when you look at where the D's have had a free hand Detroit, Chicago the place is just falling apart....chicago has like 7 murders a day....A DAY.....it is insane.....and who are the people getting killed....poor, black.....I tell you what you have had this city for 30 years....do you like where it is.....if not....lets 180 this thing and try something different.

Eh I think we are getting political....and think we might get in trouble....but it is what it is. The people that support gun control are not stupid.....they are just not informed....or misinformed would be better to say.

Click to expand...

Dog Soldier said:

How are those more political than Post Numbers 34,35.36? Please explain so we do not stop the thread?

Click to expand...

jdc1244 said:

To paraphrase the old adage: one is entitled to his own opinion as to the meaning of the Second Amendment; one is not, however, entitled to his own facts of law.

The courts alone have the authority to ‘explain’ the Second Amendment – ultimately the Supreme Court, both with regard to its meaning and the intent of the Framing Generation, not law professors or message board posters.

Consequently, firearm regulatory measures in states such as California, New York, and Maryland are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the original intent and understanding of those who lived during the Foundation Era – until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Click to expand...

“Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

“Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.”

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,…and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, …the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. DC v Heller, pages 7-8

Click to expand...

jdc1244 said:

To paraphrase the old adage: one is entitled to his own opinion as to the meaning of the Second Amendment; one is not, however, entitled to his own facts of law.

The courts alone have the authority to ‘explain’ the Second Amendment – ultimately the Supreme Court, both with regard to its meaning and the intent of the Framing Generation, not law professors or message board posters.

Consequently, firearm regulatory measures in states such as California, New York, and Maryland are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the original intent and understanding of those who lived during the Foundation Era – until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Click to expand...

“Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

“Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.”

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,…and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, …the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

DC v Heller, pages 7-8

Click to expand...

jdc1244 said:

To paraphrase the old adage: one is entitled to his own opinion as to the meaning of the Second Amendment; one is not, however, entitled to his own facts of law.

The courts alone have the authority to ‘explain’ the Second Amendment – ultimately the Supreme Court, both with regard to its meaning and the intent of the Framing Generation, not law professors or message board posters.

Consequently, firearm regulatory measures in states such as California, New York, and Maryland are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the original intent and understanding of those who lived during the Foundation Era – until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Click to expand...

Dog Soldier said:

How are those more political than Post Numbers 34,35.36? Please explain so we do not stop the thread?

Click to expand...