Posts: 7,021
Threads: 429
Joined: May 2025
wowzer wrote:
Highly correlative...
a.k.a. "nonsense."
Posts: 5,946
Threads: 982
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
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.
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.
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.
