One would think so, RIGHT!
Its not.
It's amazing how WHACKO these people interpret simple words!!!At least this gun grabber is honest with his intention. The 2A has to go. This joker is not alone.
Opinion: There's no way to fix the Second Amendment. Let's just get rid of it | CNN
Bill Press, the liberal pundit, is willing to say what has long been unsayable in US politics: The time has come to repeal Second Amendment protections of the right to have a gun, which have caused countless deaths and untold blood shed in the United States.www.cnn.com
I don't see 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th etc organizations that constantly have to battle government tyranny.
If you live within 100 miles of the U.S. border (and if you are in Hillsboro you do) the SCOTUS just flushed your a huge chunk of your 4A rights down the crapper
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Think of our rights, enumerated and otherwise as an arch bridge to freedom, with the Second as it's cap stone. Remove the cap stone and arch fails causing the bridge to collapse leaving a chasm with you on one side and Freedom on the other.
Because if they can knock off the Second Amendment, the rest will be easy to take away.
That's not entirely fair either. All of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution CAN be regulated by government, but with pretty tight limits. For example, this is how it's constitutional to ban firearms during air travel. Whether you agree or not, this is what the folks in charge of deciding what the law is have said over and over again. I think folks read the definition of "infringe" too broadly in concluding that any regulation of firearms violates the 2A.
Please name these national organizations that are constantly battling a government attack on the rest of the Bill of Rights. I'm curious.
What a *******.
Duh.
It might be illuminating to hear what the supposedly 2A supporting gun grabbers do think constitutes infringment. All I ever hear is this restriction or that restriction doesn't violate our 2A rights.
Exactly! There is no "compromise" on absolute rights. It's always a restriction. In other words, an erosion of your rights. Then it will keep eroding and you will have none.
The gun grabbers remind of the breakers in a rising ocean. They continually smash an island's shoreline eroding it little by little, eventually swallowing it whole.
Infringe has a narrow meaning to me.
Well, it's great to advocate for what you want, but the point of living together under the rule of law is that the law isn't applied subjectively to avoid government oppression. That protection cuts both ways, and a subjective reading of the 2A is what makes gun enthusiasts feel constantly attacked. You can't have the Amendments without having the other parts of the Constitution that delegate power to the coordinate branches of government. Article 3 delegates the power to the courts to decide what the words of the Constitution and other laws mean objectively. A protection we all benefit from is the that one (or a few) government officials or lawmakers subjective interpretation of the language that limits our rights can't be subjectively applied. Unfortunately, the objective interpretation of what the law means may not be what we want as individuals.
