Heller, Bruen, etc., should be reversed

Yes, if you actually read my post, your point is crushed, utterly.

Fail.

 

Arrogance makes you blind to information that doesn't serve ego.

It's not a flaw with these people it's a feature.

 

You have done nothing but offer your opinions and prove my statement that liberals would rather attempt to "interpret" the Constitution instead of simply read the damn thing.

Like it was written on some tea leaves or something...

Imagine thinking that you know better than decades of supreme Court ruling and the founding fathers....

You should write the supreme Court a letter and tell him how they have everything wrong and explain to those people what they need to understand from your perspective.

 

Doubtful I've read miles of your flatulence. It never crushes anything.

If you have to brag about how you utterly crushed somebody it's because you failed to do that. You're trying to cover up your failure with bravado.

You were wrong in the beginning you were wrong every single time you've posted about this you will be wrong until you change your position.

I'm going to go with experts on the law versus someone in an argument online and cannot accept that they might be wrong about something.

 

That's a dumb argument.

I mean, really dumb.

Why is it stupid?

the second amendment's issue of collective/individual right wasn't settled until 220 or so years after it was written

That short enough for you?

 

Vacuous drivel. doesn't refute my argument.

I quote experts all the time, who disagree with you.

Someone online? WTF is that supposed to mean? Everyone is online.

Find a real argument.

 

You weren't familiar with the sheer brilliance during the presence of?

This person knows better than all of the lawyers that have studied the law for their entire lives and dedicated their lives to it. He knows better than all of the judges and philosophers and everything else he is the supreme knower of all when it comes to this.

In fact things like courts, law and knowledge is like a conspiracy against him. It's almost in that territory of sovereign citizen crap next thing you know he's going to start talking about the gold fringes on the flag

 

yes that's exactly what you post every time you post.

I don't care about people's opinions the law is the law.

it means you weren't verified and you don't have any chops.

You're just some random person screaming into the darkness.

Fair enough the law is the law the Court ruled you are wrong.

Deal with it. It's not so much an argument but an intervention.

 

It's always arrogance with this guy.

 

I'm just here for the entertainment value of it....

 

Bold: Talk about hypocritical.

BTW, I noticed that you completely ignored my last post to you. I wonder why that is...... *not really*

 

Again, for the thousandths time....You act as if RvW was unprecedented in being overturned. When in point of fact previous SCOTUS rulings have been overturned before. DESPITE stare decisis. In point of fact SCOTUS has overruled past SCOTUS decisions over 300 times. With the longest standing case before being overturned lasting 136 years. Stare decisis is a guide. That is it. That does not mean that something is set in stone. With your logic Brown v. Board of Education should never have overturned Plessy v Ferguson...which lasted longer than RvW.

Get over it already.

 

The 'historical standard' of gun laws in the US is to restrict guns wherever black people are commonly arming themselves. That (fortunately!) doesn't fly anymore.

You said before (in another thread) that gun reforms should be accomplished via an amendment to the constitution. Is that no longer your opinion?

 

What makes your interpretation right?

 

Last I heard the founders were men not gods.

 

No one ever said they were gods. But unless you wish to ignore history then they are who we go by when it comes to documents that they wrote. If you wish to change what the 2nd Amendment is about...then pass an Amendment. Do it the right way. Stop trying to spin and ignore history in order to change it.

 

I don't " interpret " it, I simply let the simple words do the talking for themselves.

It's really not that difficult to simply read and understand what it says.... No interpretation necessary

 

I guess you might have a point.... If someone actually claimed that they were.

In their wisdom, they saw fit to see to it that we had rights even though those rights evidently anger some people who want big daddy government to tell them what to do.

The courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect you. Any person, especially a man... Is responsible for their own well-being and safety and especially that of their family.

You can trust the government to take on that role for you but as for me I will see fit to do that myself.

 

Wrong.

interpret
verb
in·ter·pret in-ˈtər-prət
-pət

interpreted; interpreting; interprets
Synonyms of interpret
transitive verb

1
: to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
interpret dreams

needed help interpreting the results

 

The second amendment is self-explanatory and needs no interpretation for anyone.

So post more definitions of random words and pretend that you made a point

 

Hmm.. Just another attempt to undermine the constitution of the united states. Why? If the OP poster doesn't want to live in a free country, leave. Go somewhere, anywhere that "protects" them for this imaginary terror conflict that they seem to embrace.

Just remember, OP, the border is just as open for those who want to leave. Move to Beijing. It will provide you the comforting embrace of authoritarianism you seem to crave.

 

This is what happens when someone doesn't even try to inform themselves about the way the US works. But who cares. This is what I suspect a chinese BOT would write in an attempt to subvert the legal rights of US citizens. It might be an interesting experiment to take @Patricio Da Silva s basic premise and plug it into Chat GPT, and compare the results.... And folks wonder why so many folks are calling out the inherent bias and danger of AI....

 

Ok so I "interpret" the 14th amendment to make abortion completely illegal. That's the kind of legal world you're advocating for, right?

 

Any honest reading on the Constitution shows only a tortured interpretation of the 2nd A can justify how it has been twisted to fit your narrative.

“A well regulated Militia”: The Law Before Heller
In Heller, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to keep and bear firearms for purposes unrelated to an organized militia. That 2008 holding was the culmination of decades of effort by gun rights advocates to transform the personal purposes interpretation of the Second Amendment from a “fraud” — in the words of (then retired) Chief Justice Warren Burger — into the law of the land.

The Second Amendment, which reads “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,”4 is a linguistic mess. Not even the placement of the commas is certain. What is certain, though, is that for 200 years the vast majority of judges interpreted it to protect only those arms, people, and activities having some connection to an organized militia.

During that time, the Supreme Court directly addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment only once, and that came in an odd decision involving the prosecution of a gangster, Jack Miller, for transporting a short-barreled shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The NFA was Congress’s response to the gun-fueled gangland violence of the 1920s and ’30s that had besieged the nation — including Stevens’s own home of Chicago. It strictly regulated short-barreled shotguns and other weapons, like the Thompson submachine gun, that had become popular among mobsters and bootleggers. In United States v. Miller, the Court held that because a short-barreled shotgun was not suitable for use in a militia, its possession was not protected by the Second Amendment, and Miller’s indictment was lawful.
https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/stevens-j-dissenting-the-legacy-of-heller/

 

The documents say congress shall not infringe. That doesn't create space for folks on the left to continue to try to infringe. That isn't difficult, so why do you continue to attempt to torture the wording to fall in line with your agenda?