Hillary: Second Amendment ‘Is Subject To Reasonable Regulation’

a reply to: SudoNim

Sure...the part that says ARMS...LOL they didn't say umm yeah firearms that exist right now that you can carry umm as an individual...yeah that's the ticket, like my wife morgan fairchild...

No, they said ARMS... That is all inclusive...

Jaden

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

Well regulated has to do with the mustering and then the conduct of troops as a body militia not the right to keep and bear.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: stosh64

The justices cannot make decisions contrary to the intent of the constitution.

The constitution is the law of the land that everyone falls under the jurisdiction of.

Everyone.

And re-interpretation of it is unlawful, it is not a "living document".

Once we start being idiots by allowing these #heads to set precedent and pick and choose what they please, and re-interpret it to suit their goals, we are lost.

Wait, we already are lost....

Never Mind.

So your saying it was unlawful when the NRA campaigned to change the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's individual right to arms back in 2008?

Or are you saying we shouldn't of changed the prohibition amendment?

Once something is written it can never be changed? Is that it? Despite them being called AMENDMENTS to the constitution.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: SudoNim

Sure...the part that says ARMS...LOL they didn't say umm yeah firearms that exist right now that you can carry umm as an individual...yeah that's the ticket, like my wife morgan fairchild...

No, they said ARMS... That is all inclusive...

Jaden

Point out the words "all inclusive" for me then.

a reply to: SudoNim

There's no need.... when there is no limitation listed, it means all inclusive...If it said, all Arms, except antything new that might be developed that would make it TOO easy to destroy opposition, you might have a point...LOL

Jaden

a reply to: SudoNim

Yep and if you want to change them, there is already a prescribed method...Get 2.3rds of both houses and 3/4ths of the people to agree and you'll be good to go... :thumbsup:

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: SudoNim

There's no need.... when there is no limitation listed, it means all inclusive...If it said, all Arms, except antything new that might be developed that would make it TOO easy to destroy opposition, you might have a point...LOL

Jaden

Oh does it then? Right. That must be one of those unwritten rules that I haven't heard of. When no limitation is listed it means all inclusive.

Next time I got to the all-you-can-eat buffet I'm going to assume it means today and any further food they produce in the future.

So why exactly are you not allowed to buy every type of "arms", why can't you buy nukes? Surely in your interpretation they are acceptable?

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: SudoNim

Yep and if you want to change them, there is already a prescribed method...Get 2.3rds of both houses and 3/4ths of the people to agree and you'll be good to go... :thumbsup:

Jaden

That's the plan

Problem is, whenever even this method is suggested Yosemite Sam's across the country blood starts pumping and they rush to a keyboard to proclaim they'll never let anyone take their precious toys.

a reply to: SudoNim

Please show me one time that it was suggested that a constitutional amendment is necessary for gun regulation by those proposing gun legislation...

Crickets.....

Jaden

a reply to: stosh64

One of the TRUTHS about the screechy one is that

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS REASONABLE ABOUT HER ABSOLUTELY RUTHLESS, CORRUPT, ARROGANT Machiavellian character and habits--

LEAST OF ALL

ANY

REGULATION SHE WANTS TO IMPLEMENT.

You can bet it will be at BEST the camel's nose under the tent with the full premeditated plan to shred the whole tent and everything in it.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: SudoNim

Please show me one time that it was suggested that a constitutional amendment is necessary for gun regulation by those proposing gun legislation...

Crickets.....

Jaden

Here you go.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: SudoNim

Yep and if you want to change them, there is already a prescribed method...Get 2.3rds of both houses and 3/4ths of the people to agree and you'll be good to go...

Crickets....

Nim

a reply to: stosh64

You Cannot Reasonably Regulate a Constitutional Right with the Phrase ' Shall Not Be Infringed " in it , PERIOD .