03-26-2024, 01:30 AM
wowzer wrote:
This is the lies from Gifford:
"Proponents of this policy have dubbed it “constitutional carry” but there is nothing in the Constitution requiring unvetted, potentially dangerous, and untrained people be allowed to carry a gun in public."
Constitution of the United States
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
definitions:
Well regulated = firearms must be maintained in good working order
Militia = all civilians of the USA, not inclusive of the military.
keep and bear arms = all the offensive and defensive arms (as per SCOTUS) and the associated accessories like suppressors, magazines, and ammunition
Shall not be infringed = you cannot pass laws limiting arms that are in common use. Common use was defined in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016) where 200,000 items were considered in common use.
Thus, the people of the USA must keep their commonly owned firearms in good working order AND the government of the USA cannot infringe upon this right.
Hogwash!
The 2nd Amendment IN ITS ENTIRETY...
“II. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Furthermore...
“Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power...”
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the “Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
“Article 2, Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”
wowzer wrote: After the 14th amendment, which has pre-empted the States from their own versions of restrictive gun laws. As In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), Justice Clarence Thomas, while concurring with the majority in incorporating the Second Amendment against the states, declared that he reached this conclusion through the Privileges or Immunities Clause instead of the Due Process Clause.
The 14th Amendment itself says nothing about guns, it's much later Supreme Court rulings that have "interpreted" it to have implications.
We've gone round and round about the demonstrated historical impermanence of Supreme Court rulings:
Korematsu v. United States
Buck v. Bell
Plessy v. Ferguson
Dred Scott v. Sandford
...AND the 18th Amendment
wowzer wrote: Right now, many of the leftist inferior courts are deliberately being stupid and pretending not to understand that text, history, and tradition of 1789 rules the Second Amendment. To pretend otherwise is to fool yourself about the law as written.
Another Bare assertion fallacy – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true.