Why the misquote? Interesting... https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=regulate To direct by rule. Like a 1 foot "ruler", which has measurable hashes used to verify calibration. Necessary for a unit to function well. And specifically uses a natural production of things as an example of a regulated (or calibrated, functioning as expected, etc) process, and established essences (again, calibrated, functioning as expected...) Excerpt from: A Text-Book of Astronomy, by George C. Comstock (This astronomy book was first published in 1901.) 1709: 1714: 1812: 1848: 1862: 1894: Well-regulated in the constitution doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means.
That's not what they were addressing in the constitution. They were obviously addressing limits to the rights of the government on law abiding citizens (otherwise we'd have no jails...) It was the states' responsibility to remove him from the population when he threatened a school shooting at 17yrs of age, at which point they would have had the right to restrict his access to firearms, track his internet history (which would have showed his aggressive and dangerous tendencies), and possibly remove his freedom. The 2nd amendment doesn't protect this guy.
You didn't show anything. You showed that misquoted the dictionary you were referencing, and didn't reference it. Once I found it, it became apparent why somebody would make such a misquote. I've not made 1 false statement that I've been made aware of. You have, as has been proven several times over.
I don't know, it doesn't say that prisoners don't get to have guns in jail. Therefore, prisoners have the right to have guns in jail. If only every criminal announced their intentions ahead of time. Seems to me the 2nd amendment would give him his guns back, were he still alive. 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. I don't see anything in there about exceptions for lawbreakers or prisoners. barfo
If that's the case then why would the Constitution need to remark on that as a requirement to own and possess a gun? Why not just say all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms period?
The legal definition which leaves out machine guns and mortars, hand grenades, mines, bombs and so on.
In this instance, the operative clause of the amendment is clear: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738
I don't think they were concerned about restricting the rights of people. They were concerned about restricting the rights of the government. That is pretty darned clear.
Maybe. I think it's a long and painful road to rejection if that's the basis of how we decide to address these issues (making guns harder for law abiding citizens to get). I just don't think these problems get solved in the next couple decades like that. And pushing restrictions on access to guns, I'm afraid, makes the moderate right harder get on board. So it will be a long fight, and it will be challenged constitutionally every step of the way. And then the supreme court will just side with the far right. And we will have alienated not just for the far right, but many of the moderate right whom it would be nice to get on board for other things which have proven to have also have huge secondary impacts on violent crime and murder rates (including gun crime). I am fully on board with making it very hard for dangerous people to get guns, including a registry of dangerous people.
Thing is... if we ban oil exports (as we likely will within a few months) our price of oil comes down to the $80 range again...
