re: Gun control lobby going after muzzleloaders now?

You're the poster child for why not everyone should be allowed to vote.

quote:

---

the 2nd amendment doesn't imply any general constitutional right for individuals to bear arms

---

Must've missed that in the wording of the actual bill of rights.

quote:

---

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

Does the 1st Amendment only apply to states rights? What about 4th Amendment? What about the 6th Amendment?

How does it make any logical sense to you at all that the bill of rights was written to give rights to individual citizens EXCEPT FOR ONE?!

quote:

---

I thought they said muzzleloaders were the ONLY weapon protected by the 2nd amendment. Get your shite together Dems.

Apparently someone is working on a suppressor for a muzzleloader and that means that gangs will start roaming the streets looking like 1776 around here.

I did find it funny that he mentions that if the D.C. sniper had a silenced muzzleloader there would be no telling what kind of carnage they would have caused. I just get a mental picture of the kid in the trunk, trying to reload a fricking MUZZLELOADER.

---

silencer for a muzzle-loader??

Just shows how IGNORANT the prog/DEM/MSM fillth really is.

quote:

---

Nothing to back the assertion up, just that lying pos partisan hack Tucker Carlson "saying" it. Pathetic.

---

What are you talking about?

ETA: You calling someone a lying pos when it comes to the 2nd Amendment is laughable!

quote:

---

No need to amend the Constitution, just have it interpreted correctly, and not the more recent perversion of it's meaning. It says, "A well-regulated militia..." This doesn't mean any yahoo on the street that's NOT in a well-regulated militia. It's pitiful how the gun lobby always like to conveniently forget about the first clause of the 2nd Amendment for their own purposes

---

quote:

---

the 2nd amendment doesn't imply any general constitutional right for individuals to bear arms or form private armies.
it was intended as a right guaranteed to a state. not for you as an individual.

just an example of the plutocracy at work.. large campaign donations do wonders to shift policy in a corporations favor

---

Just so you know, its people like yourself that keep me from ever giving an inch on any kind of gun legislation. Not an inch.

quote:

---

Technically, it only applied to Congressional action, but the XIVth Amendment has been interpreted to apply to all state action, extending to this.

Gun rights folks should continue to pursue this line with 2nd Amendment rights, particularly after Heller.

---

McDonald v. Chicago incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states via the 14th Amendment. 7 years ago.

I know that the lower federal courts for decades ruled that the 2nd Amendment provided a "collective" right as opposed to an "individual" right in many federal court decisions on gun rights, and that the SCOTUS always allowed those decisions to stand. That was the law of the land until the rightwing kooks took over the SCOTUS and totally went against all previous federal court precedent that had been allowed to stand for decades. Also, the phrase "to bear arms" in the 18th and early 19th centuries generally was understood at the time to mean service in formal military formations. And finally, "people" was often used interchangeably for "states" at the time of the Constitutional Convention.

What's laughable is ignorant frickers like you and Wayne LaPierre think you can simply ignore the clause in the 2nd Amendment that doesn't fit your viewpoint..."A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA..." At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the FF were very aware of a recent event known as Shay's Rebellion and were conscious of the dangers of people raising their own private armies and marching on the government. That's why they intended for militias to be well regulated and controlled by the states.

quote:

---

Bless your heart....

---

Right back at ya, slick. When you get out of junior high school and learn to stop believing everything your rightwing kook daddy tells you, you might learn something.

I’m so very glad that people who know much much more than you about constitutional law serve the people of this country by interpreting the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, and that you’re on the losing side of this argument.