'you aren't the be all, end all for interpreting
the Constitution'
THIS^ is true of everyone in the forum
Um...I provided the entity that IS the be all, end all fpr interpreting the Constitution. And their ruling squashed your ,firearms are for militia inference. Wanna see what you said again?
the Constitution'
THIS^ is true of everyone in the forum
"" a well regulated militia, was before our well
regulated department of defense,, and that
right was to arm those individuals,,,""
Just so YOU may FINALLY get it, here's the ruling again...
"" The Second Amendment protects an
INDIVIDUAL
right to possess a firearm UNCONNECTED WITH
SERVICE IN THE MILITIA, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-
defense within the home""
The correct response from you, after being shown the evidence, shoulda been....."Oh well, guess I was wrong"....but we all know that ain't gonna happen
YET, here we are sharing our views anyway,,,,,
You and anyone can share whatever views you want. Still doesn't exempt you from being called on your bs.
for the record, I have never disputed the right
to own 'a firearm'
Good for you, you wanna prize or something?
to own 'a firearm'
HERE IN AMERICA, we already own more per
capita than any other industrialized country,,,,
So?
capita than any other industrialized country,,,,
that has little to do with regulating firearms
themselves
Again, you, or nobody else can come up with a good reason why a law abiding U.S. citizen shouldnt be able to own the types of firearms the anti gun nuts want to ban...i.e., 'assault rifles' and high capacity magazines...Once again, you already can choose not to own these weapons...quit fricking with my choice TO own them.
themselves
the same reason they shouldn't be able to use right to free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater
common sense concern for public safety,,
