Staff Member
Diamond Supporter
Platinum Supporter
Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 12,399
- Reactions
- 17,965
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When a judge on the 9th Circuit Court recently argued, "When does the court have the ability to say enough is enough?" Benitez said.
"How do we make the decision of how far we allow the state to interfere in what is arguably protected by the Second Amendment?" he added. "None of us would want one of our neighbors to own a bazooka or hand grenade but if you read the Second Amendment that would probably be okay."
The judge also challenged the piecemeal approach the government has taken in addressing public safety concerns regarding guns. He questioned the "incremental way we're addressing the Second Amendment," hypothesizing the government could use the same arguments to enact a ban on lower capacity magazines in the future.
"Why should the government be so arrogant as to tell law-abiding citizens: 'You know what? Too bad, so sad. If you had 17 rounds you would have been able to stop that assailant and now you're raped and now you're dead,'" Benitez said.
I thought the meme was better than calling him an ignorant douchebag.
Just read that to myself in my best Forrest Gump voice, makes it even funnier
In the ACLU article, the author, Jay Stanley, states, "...the Constitution does permit limits on firearms sale and ownership."
I love when people make sweeping statements that lead the hootenanny to believe the 2nd Amendment is negotiable.
Yes, I believe so, and IIRC, written into Scalia's opinion.I think that was written into the Heller decision.
Yes, I believe so, and IIRC, written into Scalia's opinion.
However, the implication of the sentence as I interpret his writing, is that it is inherent in the language of the Constitution, not subsequent case law.
And he ain't playing horseshoes.True but as far as an ACLU attorney goes, that's close enough.
Firearms from our very beginning as a nation have had implications for our liberty.
The very reason the English marched onto Concord April 19th 1775 , was to confiscate arms stored there.
If it wasn't for firearms and our use of them we might not be the nation that we are today.
As for the implications for today...
Millions of gun owners every day do no harm to others with their guns...
That seems to me , to be a telling implication.
Andy
That's why, once it starts, it doesn't end until the other side surrenders or is fully defeated. Period. Let's face it, it's going to be ugly, most likely the casualties will be in the millions, but unless the governments get back to their original jobs, there may be no other choice...To digress slightly it also appear that if civil unrest were to occur it would be a all or none situation, as for sure at a ceasefire, there would be full confiscation just as it would have been for our forefathers.