The dissent is more compelling.Are you intentionally ignoring District of Columbia v. Heller?
The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center
Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.constitutioncenter.org
What's more compelling is the intent of our Founders. They make it clear that the People have a right to keep and bear.
thefederalistpapers.org
Their intent as demonstrated by the text they wrote is for a well regulated militia.What's more compelling is the intent of our Founders. They make it clear that the People have a right to keep and bear.
The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment
The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment: This Says it ALL
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
You didn't read the link I posted or you are intentionally lying to yourself. Have a good day at work, and be safe out there. ✌
I’ve read Heller. Have you read the dissenting opinion?
Taliban has been defending its homeland since the days of Alexander the Great. Vietcong was a good example, so is the rag tag militia against the British army in 1776. Even Hezbollah gets credit here.
An army is only as good as the Commander in Chief....Uh-Oh
Yeah. Regulated by the entity it's designed to keep in check is exactly what they meant. Herp derp.
Yes. They were armed with military grade weapons.......
Do you even know what the Revolutionary War was about?
Communist(Liberal Democrats) are the most dangerous enemy to the US. They are systematically destroying the US from within.
I believe they meant regulated by each State not the federal government.
Can you prove that the U.S. government at any time confiscated everyone's guns because it was unconstitutional to own them? Go all the way back to the founding and show us the routine roundup of weapons with only the local militias having guns that were kept in an armory and not at home.
So you're telling him his interpretation is wrong but yours is right? This is why we have a Supreme Court, and they've never ruled against individual citizens owning guns with the exception of convicted felons and FAIK mental patients.
Another wing of the same bird.
In the language of the time regulated meant trained. Not more like the present connotation of being controlled.
When’s the last time that happened?
Not sure, but you act like an armed population can’t have an impact because we can’t fend off nuclear bombs(because you let marxist nonsense poison your brain). I’m telling you an armed population can take a politician’s head off and that can have huge ramifications and impact. You act like an armed population isn’t a threat to government, I’m telling you it has been historically and will continue to be so.
Don’t let these spinster run away from this fact. This is the reason we are even discussing guns, because our law enforcement is failing because of their ideology. Because of their propaganda.
Not nearly in the way your post suggested. We’ve had presidents assassinated that didn’t erupt in war.
That’s a bit less than supportive of his position.
