Yes , which is why I keep using it...
However, that's taking the part we like out of context and strengthening it by omitting the part that seems to weaken the statement, at least for our purposes. That really isnt legitimate to slant a statement the way you want by taking it out of context.
) my repeating the last part and only the last part of the 2nd Amendment is done because :
...or there is a fire?
And if you actually understand the first part, then it is even more clear.
If anything it only strengthens the fact that it is a right to be expressly preserved for every individual citizen in this country!
I understand it fully but the SCOTUS spent the better part of 200 years misunderstanding it.
No. Way less than 200 years. Say about 75-95 years, back to NFA 1934. matter of fact... before that; it was up to the States and towns on whether to prohibit open carry of arms; and a man could buy short barreled firearms, concealable weapons that would later be known as AOWs, full auto machine guns, grenades, cannons, fully armed warships, and even firearms silencers without a tax stamp, up until the NFA 1934...
On the militia side it goes back farther than that. Everyone forgets about the Militia side. The second amendment is every bit about the right of the people to form militias as it is about your right to own a gun. That part gets mowed over with abandon.
They can set up what they want but when an actual case in standing gets in front of the court a 5% ambulance chaser will get the case thrown out.
Whenever I thought about slavery. Well.......I figure that.......King Soloman had slaves in his palace. Sooooo???????
For someone (say, Politicians) to Intentionally and Knowingly pass and/or attempt to pass......UNCOUNSTITUTIONAL LAW(s)........yes, there should be/needs to be consequences.
Yeah sure. What will happen instead is they will get a few standing cases that will get thrown out and after a while they will stop wasting money on prosecuting them.
IMHO.....
