SCOTUS

[houndawg]

Having no kids doesn't mean you have no skin in that game - the entire nation has skin in the game, big skin.

Obviously. Pretty sure that was implied in my post.

No, it wasn't, by the very fact that you said there were people with no skin in the game.

Are there people who don't realize they have skin in the game? Absolutely.

[93henfan]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/in-6 ... rboXvja_B0

BRUEN OVERTURNED!!!

[kalm]

[BDKJMU]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/in-6 ... rboXvja_B0

BRUEN OVERTURNED!!!

Strikes down similar laws in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island amd anyone else I left off..

[HI54UNI]

That's a stupid take.

[BDKJMU]

That's a stupid take.

Yeah, that guy is a moron. Right to bear arms is clearly spelled out in 2A. Its NOT a states’ rights issue. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, tberefore it can at least be argued it falls under the 10A and is a states’ rights issue.

[93henfan]

Pure idiocy right there. Wow. Why would you even want to share that? You’re more intelligent than that. I hope.

There’s a reason your side is getting fucking curb-stomped right now, and there’s your sign.

[UNI88]

That's a stupid take.

Yeah, that guy is a moron. Right to bear arms is clearly spelled out in 2A. Its NOT a states’ rights issue. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, tberefore it can at least be argued it falls under the 10A and is a states’ rights issue.

Yep. That guy should stay in the shallow end of the pool.

[BDKJMU]

Yeah, that guy is a moron. Right to bear arms is clearly spelled out in 2A. Its NOT a states’ rights issue. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, tberefore it can at least be argued it falls under the 10A and is a states’ rights issue.

Yep. That guy should stay in the shallow end of the pool.

Kalm can join him for posting that guy’s idiocy..

[BDKJMU]

Yeah, you go right ahead and try that Hochul..

The dumb broad is referring to ‘assault weapons’ magazines when the case ws about everyday concealed carry for self defense, ie handguns. No one is doing concealed carry of MSRs (I don’t need some smartass to post a pic of someone concealing an AR, AK or SBR under a trenchcoat to show it can be done)..

[UNI88]

Yeah, you go right ahead and try that Hochul..

She should start with her security detail to demonstrate her commitment.

[kalm]

Yeah, that guy is a moron. Right to bear arms is clearly spelled out in 2A. Its NOT a states’ rights issue. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, tberefore it can at least be argued it falls under the 10A and is a states’ rights issue.

Yep. That guy should stay in the shallow end of the pool.

He’s just trying to follow the court’s logic between the two rulings. Heaven forbid someone bring up the concept of state’s rights.

Here’s another one that I’m sure will create some more gnashing of teeth…

Virginia Declaration of Rights that Madison copied some verbiage from:

“Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

[93henfan]

Yep. That guy should stay in the shallow end of the pool.

He’s just trying to follow the court’s logic between the two rulings. Heaven forbid someone bring up the concept of state’s rights.

It’s really not that difficult if you’ve been through a basic Civics course in school (or even if you can simply read - the US Constitution isn’t that long). The right to bear arms is constitutional and the right to murder an unborn child is not.

[BDKJMU]

Yep. That guy should stay in the shallow end of the pool.

He’s just trying to follow the court’s logic between the two rulings. Heaven forbid someone bring up the concept of state’s rights.

Here’s another one that I’m sure will create some more gnashing of teeth…

Virginia Declaration of Rights that Madison copied some verbiage from:

“Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

‘Well regulated’ in 18th century language doesn’t mean what you think it means.

You should stay in the shallow end of the pool on this topic..

[93henfan]

He’s just trying to follow the court’s logic between the two rulings. Heaven forbid someone bring up the concept of state’s rights.

Here’s another one that I’m sure will create some more gnashing of teeth…

Virginia Declaration of Rights that Madison copied some verbiage from:

“Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

‘Well regulated’ in 18th century language doesn’t mean what you think it means.

You should stay in the shallow end of the pool on this topic..

Furthermore, the Second Amendment does not require membership in a well regulated Militia to exercise the right to bear Arms. I hear liberals make that misstep all the time. They’re simply wrong.

[kalm]

He’s just trying to follow the court’s logic between the two rulings. Heaven forbid someone bring up the concept of state’s rights.

It’s really not that difficult if you’ve been through a basic Civics course in school (or even if you can simply read - the US Constitution isn’t that long). The right to bear arms is constitutional and the right to murder an unborn child is not.

Hmm…well I’m here to be educated. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. The interpretation of intent from the founders seems to be the contested point.

Similar to the definition of abortion, murder, and what constitutes to life.

Hanging over both decisions is the issue of states rights. It’s literally brought up in the current courts writings.

I too could be snarky and say amend the constitution to fit unmitigated rights to bear all manner of arms in any fashion or STFU but I look for deeper meaning.

So please, enlighten this gun owner.

[93henfan]

It’s really not that difficult if you’ve been through a basic Civics course in school (or even if you can simply read - the US Constitution isn’t that long). The right to bear arms is constitutional and the right to murder an unborn child is not.

Hmm…well I’m here to be educated. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. The interpretation of intent from the founders seems to be the contested point.

Similar to the definition of abortion, murder, and what constitutes to life.

Hanging over both decisions is the issue of states rights. It’s literally brought up in the current courts writings.

I too could be snarky and say amend the constitution to fit unmitigated rights to bear all manner of arms in any fashion or STFU but I look for deeper meaning.

So please, enlighten this gun owner.

“…shall not be infringed…”

Not a hard concept to understand. Consider yourself educated. Carry on.

[Col Hogan]

It’s really not that difficult if you’ve been through a basic Civics course in school (or even if you can simply read - the US Constitution isn’t that long). The right to bear arms is constitutional and the right to murder an unborn child is not.

Hmm…well I’m here to be educated. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. The interpretation of intent from the founders seems to be the contested point.

Similar to the definition of abortion, murder, and what constitutes to life.

Hanging over both decisions is the issue of states rights. It’s literally brought up in the current courts writings.

I too could be snarky and say amend the constitution to fit unmitigated rights to bear all manner of arms in any fashion or STFU but I look for deeper meaning.

So please, enlighten this gun owner.

Dr Naomi Wolf, a self-described liberal, wrote a wonderful piece on the Second Amendment in anticipation of todays SCOTUS ruling. She addresses a number of issues, but I feel her discussion on language is one of the best I’ve every read. She ends the discussion with a translation of the 18th century English of the Second Amendment into modern-day English.

Grammar too was used to make the case against individual gun ownership. Often, commentators in our circles described the phrasing of the Second Amendment as being so twisted and archaic that no one today could never truly confirm the Founders’ intentions regarding gun ownership by individuals.

Indeed, I heard these truisms so often, that when I actually sat down and read the Second Amendment carefully — as I was writing my 2008 book about the decline of democracies, The End of America — I was startled: because the Second Amendment wasn’t unclear at all.

“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.”

Critics on the Left of individual gun rights often described this sentence as being opaque because it has two clauses, and two commas prior to the final clause; so they read the first two sections as relating unclearly to the last assertion.

But if you are familiar with late 18th century rhetoric and sentence construction, the meaning of this sentence is transparent.

The construction of this sentence is typical of late 18th into early 19th century English grammar, in which there can be quite a few dependent clauses, gerunds and commas that come before the verb, and the object of, the sentence.

Thus, the correct way to read the Second Amendment, if you understand 18th century English grammar, is:

“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.”

Or, translated into modern English construction: “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/0 ... aomi-wolf/

[kalm]

Hmm…well I’m here to be educated. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. The interpretation of intent from the founders seems to be the contested point.

Similar to the definition of abortion, murder, and what constitutes to life.

Hanging over both decisions is the issue of states rights. It’s literally brought up in the current courts writings.

I too could be snarky and say amend the constitution to fit unmitigated rights to bear all manner of arms in any fashion or STFU but I look for deeper meaning.

So please, enlighten this gun owner.

Dr Naomi Wolf, a self-described liberal, wrote a wonderful piece on the Second Amendment in anticipation of todays SCOTUS ruling. She addresses a number of issues, but I feel her discussion on language is one of the best I’ve every read. She ends the discussion with a translation of the 18th century English of the Second Amendment into modern-day English.

Grammar too was used to make the case against individual gun ownership. Often, commentators in our circles described the phrasing of the Second Amendment as being so twisted and archaic that no one today could never truly confirm the Founders’ intentions regarding gun ownership by individuals.

Indeed, I heard these truisms so often, that when I actually sat down and read the Second Amendment carefully — as I was writing my 2008 book about the decline of democracies, The End of America — I was startled: because the Second Amendment wasn’t unclear at all.

“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.”

Critics on the Left of individual gun rights often described this sentence as being opaque because it has two clauses, and two commas prior to the final clause; so they read the first two sections as relating unclearly to the last assertion.

But if you are familiar with late 18th century rhetoric and sentence construction, the meaning of this sentence is transparent.

The construction of this sentence is typical of late 18th into early 19th century English grammar, in which there can be quite a few dependent clauses, gerunds and commas that come before the verb, and the object of, the sentence.

Thus, the correct way to read the Second Amendment, if you understand 18th century English grammar, is:

“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.”

Or, translated into modern English construction: “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/0 ... aomi-wolf/

Yes. I’m aware of this argument. Perhaps I shoukd have said, modernize the 18th century language or STFU?

[SDHornet]

That's a stupid take.

Yep. Abortion isn't a constitutional right, anyone claiming such is a fucking idiot.

[SDHornet]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/in-6 ... rboXvja_B0

BRUEN OVERTURNED!!!

[SDHornet]

[SDHornet]

[houndawg]

That's a stupid take.

Yeah, that guy is a moron. Right to bear arms is clearly spelled out in 2A. Its NOT a states’ rights issue. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, tberefore it can at least be argued it falls under the 10A and is a states’ rights issue.

Written with the assumption that the US would have no standing armies or foreign entanglements.

Applied only to white males of fighting age.

[houndawg]

That's a stupid take.

The Party of Small Gubmint.