Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
BLM and Antifa need to get "regulated"The words “well regulated” are right in there, you know…
Did you like how Kyle Rittenhouse had to do a little "regulation" on his own?
BLM and Antifa need to get "regulated"The words “well regulated” are right in there, you know…
There's a reason you omitted the first half of that sentence, and we both know what it is."The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Maybe try reading comprehension class.
Do you believe the Civil War was a war to end slavery? Next time try a well researched historical account.So I’ve read numerous articles supporting what I’ve said.
I'll do you one better and simply suggest you visit the nearest university library.If I’m wrong then please produce links accordingly.
I'm not measuring intelligence. A person can be quite intelligent yet ignorant on a number of subjects.You don't have the tools to measure intelligence.
Nope, because even back when the law was written, semi-automatic rifles existed, and actual cannons were includedIn theory, the US could pass a federal law outlawing private ownership / possession of all firearms except the musket, and this would still be consistent with the Second Amendment.
No, not really. Various semi-automatic weapons existed, and the puckle gun which was an early machine gun, existed. In addition, cannons were covered under the amendment as well, according to the Founding Fathers.yeah, guns had a “quite different meaning back then,” too
lol
To end slavery? not necessarily, given Lincoln would have likely conceded and kept it if it meant ending conflict and keeping the union together. It did mostly end up being the end result (though slavery of African slaves by Native Americans continued for some time, even after the 13th Amendment passed, and even after Juneteenth, they still continue do keep black slaves, until finally forced to stop it under a new treaty.Do you believe the Civil War was a war to end slavery? Next time try a well researched historical account.
I'll do you one better and simply suggest you visit the nearest university library.
There is: it's a prefatory clause that does not constrain the part I quoted, nor relevant to my post. Go educate yourself.There's a reason you omitted the first half of that sentence, and we both know what it is.
Yes that sounds right, I understand that whilst Lincoln wanted to end slavery he initially left the border states out of the emancipation.To end slavery? not necessarily, given Lincoln would have likely conceded and kept it if it meant ending conflict and keeping the union together. It did mostly end up being the end result (though slavery of African slaves by Native Americans continued for some time, even after the 13th Amendment passed, and even after Juneteenth, they still continue do keep black slaves, until finally forced to stop it under a new treaty.
Until 1933 it also didn't say that people had a right to drink alcohol. Rights exist by default until they are curtailed, not the other way around.... it also doesn't say everyone has the right to own a gun.
Discuss.
Yep - had the founders seen the ridiculous munitions that modern Americans insist is their right, they might have thought twice about lumbering their Bill of Rights with that appalling anachronism.yeah, guns had a “quite different meaning back then,” too
lol
While I agree with the gist of what you wrote, the above fragment is incorrect. Not having a prohibition against <X> doesn't mean you have a right to <X>. It just means <X> isn't against the law (et al).Rights exist by default until they are curtailed
Have it your way. Go to this site: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/join-the-signersYep - had the founders seen the ridiculous munitions that modern Americans insist is their right, they might have thought twice about lumbering their Bill of Rights with that appalling anachronism.
Indeed, but I don't see the practical difference between having the right to abort, and not being punished for aborting.While I agree with the gist of what you wrote, the above fragment is incorrect. Not having a prohibition against <X> doesn't mean you have a right to <X>. It just means <X> isn't against the law (et al).
If you have a right to <X>, there must be some mechanism to protect your access-to <X>, or punish violations of that access. I have a right to be safe from attack when I walk down the sidewalk in the center of town. I don't have a right to wear my favorite t-shirt when doing it, though.
---
One is protected behavior, the other is not. While the consequences look identical, it's important to distinguish between the two.Indeed, but I don't see the practical difference between having the right to abort, and not being punished for aborting.
Yeah, I’m totally wrong.Nope, because even back when the law was written, semi-automatic rifles existed, and actual cannons were included
No, not really. Various semi-automatic weapons existed, and the puckle gun which was an early machine gun, existed. In addition, cannons were covered under the amendment as well, according to the Founding Fathers.
I'm sorry you don't grasp what a prefatory clause is, nor the fact that 'well-regulated' did not mean what you libtards try to make it out to mean.
Why 'lol',???? You have the examples of older guns, they are still recognisable as guns, not trans or giraffes or anythingYeah, I’m totally wrong.
Guns were exactly the same 250 years ago as they are today.
lol
Everyone has the right to life… that includes little babies and that includes self defense.... it also doesn't say everyone has the right to own a gun.
Discuss.
Justice Mikey hath spoken.... it also doesn't say everyone has the right to own a gun.
Discuss.
Do you believe the Civil War was a war to end slavery? Next time try a well researched historical account.
I'll do you one better and simply suggest you visit the nearest university library.