How is this "open to interpretation"

How is this "open to interpretation"

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/FirstAmendmentFederalism.htm
npr.org/2016/03/24/471762310/donald-trump-wants-to-open-up-libel-laws-so-he-can-sue-news-outlets
newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Toobin
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

(((People))) don't like guns and therefore push supreme court nominations of people that don't follow the constitution.

Some people dispute the definition of "infringed". What constitutes infringed? How much regulation can be pushed through before it can be called "infringed".

Trolololol

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. doesnt say everyone should be able to keep a howitzer in their backyard for personal use

The constitution is a living document goyim

how do you "bear" a howitzer?

RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

You might interpret it to mean the state can regulate firearms so long as the people maintain the right to buy whatever firearm is deemed legal to purchase. So every firearm that isn't a single shot flintlock could be deemed illegal, and those weapons can be confiscated under law- while preserving the constitution so long as we're free to buy single shot flintlocks.

Do you just not understand what the word interpretation means?

>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.
That part isn't what they want to interpret. They want to interpret the militia part as the most important.

Because the Constitution is a "living document," which is also why Trump is now appointed to a life term in office. Also, the office is now hereditary, so only his children will rule.

Isn't this fun?

The Second Amendment gives no power to the government to restrict or regulate the sale of firearms. There is not way to interpret it in such a way.

Nor does it say they cannot.

>the constitution can mean whatever I want it to!

Context?

You know what, fuck off.

The context is literally "Citizens need weapons, and their right to those weapons SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Move to Alaska where we respect the constitution.

>actually don't move here because most of you are liberal cucks

And that is the basis of American law. Nothing is illegal until something terrible results from it. Then laws are made about it.

Every male citizen aged 18 to 45 is considered by federal law to be in the militia. I would really like to see gun grabbers give an honest attempt to argue that old people and women shouldn't have guns while young guys in the prime of their life get to run around strapped.

Not trolling, actually curious.

With context, in the 1770s wasn't EVERYBODY a part of the militia? Didn't everyone have at least a hunting rifle?

They can only make laws that they have the authority to under the constitution
Even without the 2nd amendment they could only regulate weapons if they crossed state and federal borders

No you dumbass. The context is a bunch of richies trolled poorfags into fighting for them and it worked. Hamilton was a total fucking asshole.

>c-clamp

Lmao get a load of this loser

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

How is this "not important"?

Daily Reminder: Rightfag "constitutionalists" only care about one constitutional amendment.

You retarded cuck, you do know that "regulated" means in working order in this case? And MILITIA and the MILITARY are two different things. How people still corelate the two speaks to how stupid you people are despite claims otherwise

Separation of Church and State is not in the constitution dipshit

>Come to Alaska!
>Pay $42.19 for a new fridge magnet

No thanks. It is fucking gorgeous but the premium on items is just insane.

>Daily Reminder: Rightfag "constitutionalists" only care about one constitutional amendment.

because there would be no rights without the 2nd fucking amendment.

>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO THE MILITIA, IT'S GUARANTEED TO THE PEOPLE.

THE PEOPLE ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE SENTENCE

THE FIRST PART:

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

IS EXPLAINING THE MAIN REASON WHY THIS RIGHT IS GUARANTEED TO THE PEOPLE.

LEARN FUCKING SENTENCE STRUCTURE.

What's a c clamp?

hey user how are you going to arm a militia when we need an uprising against our own government?

Everyone had a rifle, period. Be it for war, hunting, or self defense.

The whole point is that our government and it's power is derived from the people, for the people. To deny the people guns is to infringe on their inherent humanity, the right to self defense against any enemy, foreign or domestic.

I'll admit that's a nice image. Maybe you're not an artfag but you did get some nice contrast and composition there.

>Well regulated militia
If you are focusing on the militia statement the laws of 1770 don't matter because regulations change.

What part of "SHALL MAKE NO LAW" do you not understand? The right is nothing but a bunch of lying hypocrites.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase USED BY THOMAS JEFFERSON and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Literally could not be clearer.

But it's the only right you care about.

>doesn't know the c-clamp

That might aswell be an airshit user

well, because feelings.

thats why

What about this one. I do my best work when I'm stoned because marijuana is legal here cause we respect the constitution

>American reading comprehension

Congress shall make no law
State can do whatever they want

>But it's the only right you care about.
I don't think so, shit like freedom of speech is very important to us too. and this "my feelings" shit is getting in its way.

I honestly don't know any laws I believe in that break the constitution. only one I can think of is how I'm okay with people not selling to customers they don't politically agree with. Like the cake guy and the gay cake.

...

...

The constitution allows for repealing amendments so what does it matter?

>Congress shall not abridge freedom of speech
>Unless it's obscene
>Or slanderous
>Or child porn

The constitution is bullshit, the Supreme Court can outright make shit up and there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. Abortion was legalized through the fucking 14th amendment.

>is a phrase USED BY THOMAS JEFFERSON and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause
>expressing an understanding

Let's just completely undermine your own argument, fuckwad.

You're still not shooting at anything. So beautiful though, almost makes you want to excuse leaves.

it's crazy how much thought had to go into every single comma and word. Just so fucks in the future couldn't misinterpret it.

atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/FirstAmendmentFederalism.htm

>I don't think so, shit like freedom of speech is very important to us too
No it isn't. You literally elected a fucking retard who wants to enact censorship laws.

Child porn is not free speech, you fucking lunatic.

>Let's just completely undermine your own argument, fuckwad.
You can't moron. The people who fucking wrote the god damned thing also EXPLAINED exactly what they meant by it. You can stop now. You fucking hicks always act like the founding fathers only ever spoke in the constitution and you can continuously put words in their mouths.

NOOB

C clamp is the grip you had, user.

You call him a troll, but it's questions like these that are valid in "Law"

So it is possible

The parts of it that came before about the militia which you left out. I am all for gun ownership. I think Canada has perfect gun laws. Requiring certain guns to be registered and requiring a license to possess guns is not infringement. You have the right to travel but still need to get a license to drive. people buy various assult rifles here, but the mag is limited to 5 rounds. All fully auto is illegal, same as it is in USA. We don't register any long barrel guns and can legally sell them. It's a good set up to be honest.

>No it isn't. You literally elected a fucking retard who wants to enact censorship laws.
an example?

>By Austin Cline
>Agnosticism & Atheism Expert


lel

>Trolololol
what year is it

Learn to English

Where I'm from it's called thumb over bore.

>What part of "SHALL MAKE NO LAW" do you not understand?

How is allowing prayer in a public school making a law with respect to establishment of religion? Hint: IT ISN'T.

Why are left wingers always posturing as superior intellectually when you can't understand the definition of simple, simple words?

By preventing prayer you are prohibiting the free exercise of religion. You just contradicted yourself. How do you creatures manage to breathe?

Every left-wing take on the Bill of Rights is wrong. The easiest way to tell this is to look at what was done and accepted by the people who actually wrote the thing. You'll notice the whole leftist edifice contradicts them; therefore they are wrong. On school prayer, free speech, freedom of assembly, people who know what they are talking about constantly have to remind you creatures what is actually true and what isn't. Because you make definitions up as you go along to suit your feelings.

And that's all leftism is: MUH FEELZ. Everything you do subverts truth and freedom in the name of your flavor-of-the-month horseshit. Khazars offended at public school prayer? End it! Blacks offended by a flag? Ban it! Skanks offended by babies? Kill them!

Can't wait for Wormwood to deal with you creatures.

>You're still not shooting at anything.

Full-blown communist here, it's not.

We're not coming for your guns, guys. That's the bourgeoisie.

>For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

>Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

>Justice Stevens in dissent:

> When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim "that the Second Amendment ... codified a pre-existing right," ante, at 19 [refers to page 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.

you fired a black gun at water

at least bacon killed an Apple

npr.org/2016/03/24/471762310/donald-trump-wants-to-open-up-libel-laws-so-he-can-sue-news-outlets

I couldn't find an infowars link. Sorry.

>allowing prayer in a public school
1: Very few TEXANS who are trying to FORCE prayer into public schools are actually talking about random isolated students praying on their own, which is their constitutional right and
2: Any school that moved against prayer in its halls is almost certainly just covering its own ass. They're also almost certainly not restricting isolated, individual students from praying. If they are, they ARE infringing on that student's constitutional right. But of course, see 1 above.The right ALWAYS lies and its causes are NEVER organic. NEVER. Schools tend to only move against shit like this when it becomes organized and starts trying to do shit like bring clergy into the school.

>Can't wait for Wormwood to deal with you creatures.
>How about some mythology?
>PSSSH nothing personal, kid
Jesus christ, neck yourself, you cringey fuck

But its a great way to shoot an AR

you know I don't entirely agree with trump, but legally speaking the media has been sparking a lot of hate against whites and trump supporters.
which actually goes against the constitution if it's a call for this.

I know they're in no way going to be able to prove it, but it does have some ((((proof))))

>Open up libel laws
>Laws that already exist, but are rarely enforced

>Wanting to hold the (((media))) accountable is censorship

Oy vey

>you fired a black gun at water

>In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court issued what is still its only important decision interpreting the scope of the right to keep and bear arms. In that case, the Court upheld a federal statute that regulated the interstate transportation of machine guns and short-barreled shotguns. For better or worse, the Court's opinion is so ambiguous that advocates for almost every conceivable interpretation of the Second Amendment have been able to claim that it supports their view.

>Initially, however, the lower federal courts were unanimous in their interpretation of Miller. Every court that considered the question concluded that the Second Amendment does not protect any meaningful individual right to keep or bear arms. One line of cases in the lower courts read Miller to endorse the proposition that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right of the states to maintain their own military organizations. Another line of cases arrived at much the same result by concluding that individuals can only exercise their Second Amendment rights by joining a state militia organization. Under either line of reasoning, the Second Amendment effectively becomes a nullity because it places virtually no limits on government's power to disarm American citizens.

SHALL

>but legally speaking the media has been sparking a lot of hate against whites and trump supporters
Yes, for once they're actually reporting the facts. On the other hand, and if you were being honest, the media is playing with you literal fascists with kid gloves.

>Now let's hear both sides now...
The media are retarded whores. But they're also protected by the first amendment. I just wish they'd do their fucking jobs instead of trying to sell sensationalism. If the media were interested in spreading the truth, they would have been calling for literal genocide against you lunatics.

>Lying Donald Trump is a great source of objective fact

MAKE NO LAW

>Quoting a new yorker article
newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
>by Jeffrey Toobin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Toobin
>ctrl+f "jew"

>MAKE NO LAW
yes and
I agree congress shall make no law

Source: (((Jeffrey Toobin))) of the New Yorker

If you read the last post it has the correct interpretation which somewhat agrees with both of us.That is, yes, the second amendment was largely intended for well-regulated militias. But at the same time the point is moot because the government doesn't have the right to take away people's guns anyway.

>Yes, for once they're actually reporting the facts
no they're not they're reporting ((((truths)))) where they leave out the important parts that actually put into context what's going on.

Like the huffington post will take a part of donald's tweet and make him look like a violence enabler, when the rest of the tweet shows that he condems it.

>they would have been calling for literal genocide against you lunatics.
oh, I hope you're not actually serious.

>Lying Donald Trump

CTR leave, they're not even paying you anymore

Surely you can't be that stupid... Right?

...

The Constitution isn't an affirmative grant of powers subject to a few exceptions.

Government can do only those specific, enumerated things and nothing more.

A militia can't defend the country if they're disarmed, user. The same argument that you can't fight the US government with just an AR-15 when they have jets and tanks applies to other governments as well.

>Schools tend to only move against shit like this when it becomes organized and starts trying to do shit like bring clergy into the school.

Wrong. Schools do not move against this until a lawsuit led by shitlibs happens. Publicly led school prayers were common until outlawed in the 20th century. The cause was the hurt feelings of a (((person))). It was like another shoah I tell you!

Since there were no real problems with this before the 1960s, I humbly submit that you and your vile fellow travelers have no idea what you are talking about.

>They're also almost certainly not restricting isolated, individual students from praying.

Meanwhile, shitlibs are foaming at the mouth that somewhere a Christian doesn't acknowledge fag marriage. Better close his business down, First Amendment be damned! Your rights end where my life-partner's feelings begin, bigot.


>The right ALWAYS lies and its causes are NEVER organic.

Rosaparks.txt
Civilrightsmovement.txt
ACLU.txt

Everything in leftism is a fraud backed by threats and lies.

>Jesus christ, neck yourself, you cringey fuck

Join ISIS now

And he cites (((Jill Lepore))) and (((Reva Siegel))) too.

, , and are just Jewish fan fiction. I bet that poster cannot provide any other sources saying this about the Supreme Court.

OP is asking for a legitimate interpretation. Not your opinion which lacks the facts to back it up.

>President Clinton promotes it. The National Rifle Association preaches it. And pollsters say the public believes in it.

>But the judges who interpret the nation's laws say the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms. In fact, no federal court has ever ruled that the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own a gun.

>In few areas of law is there such a vast gulf between what people think the Constitution protects and what the nation's judges say it protects. The difference between belief and reality infects the country's perennial gun control debates and exacerbates tensions after incidents like the 1993 shootout near Waco, Tex., and the Oklahoma City bombing last month, which put new attention on citizen paramilitary groups.

>The Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,' on the American public," former chief justice Warren E. Burger said in a 1991 interview on PBS's "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour." Burger has said often that the "right to bear arms" belongs to the states, and he has attacked the NRA for fostering the opposite view.

>The Second Amendment says, "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."

>The widespread legal and judicial view is that the Second Amendment guarantees a state's right to be armed – for example, in today's National Guard.

>When the Supreme Court has spoken in this area – and it has done so infrequently – it has begun with the idea that the Second Amendment protects a state's right to keep arms for a militia. In a nationally watched 1983 case, the justices let the town of Morton Grove, Ill., ban handguns. Without comment or dissent, they left intact a lower court decision rejecting the contention that Americans have a constitutional right to be armed.

...

article from 1995, do you think that the supreme court and federal courts are jewish fan fiction?

Kinda puts me in the mood for a howitzer in my back yard... A guy can dream. In the mean time small fish nfa items will have to do.

> In that case, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment restricts federal authority in this area, not that of state and local governments. The court stated, "We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

>Yet, the "right to bear arms" is such a part of the American lexicon that in 1991, on the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, a Los Angeles Times poll found that 62 percent of those surveyed believed their right to own a gun or rifle was guaranteed by the Constitution.

>The gap between the prevailing legal view and public understanding is widened by an atmosphere of growing public distrust of government and an increasingly political conflict over gun control.

> Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe, whose writings have influenced how many law professors and judges understand the Constitution, said popular notions of fundamental American law sometimes conflict with what is on the books.

>"I think there are at least two constitutions of the United States," he said. "There is a kind of mythic constitution that reflects widely held beliefs, slogans. And then there is the one that starts with a piece of paper at the Archives and has an extensive history."

>Tribe asserts that the Second Amendment's history and text demonstrate it was intended to prevent federal interference with a state militia. He stresses the importance of the opening clause referring to a "well regulated Militia."

How could the courts have missed this for over 200 years? Why was the personal ownership of firearms widespread if it was illegal? Were the judges and lawmakers in the country oblivious? Or was no one qualified to adjudicate any constitutional matter until the Burger court?

Courts "find" things all the time. Like a right to commit sodomy. It's in the constitution. Where? The penumbras emanate new meanings constantly. Whatever (((they))) need it to say, it will say.

Legal regulations have nothing to do with it, up until the 1800's the idiom well regulated meant functioning properly, it had nothing to do with government regulation.

I love this guy.

Using your interpretation, we should be able to privately own SAMs, tactical thumb nukes, and land mines.

libertarianball.jpg

In their minds this was only meant to protect the right to bear arms for people the government has authorized to bear arms.

I dunno I'm actually against most forms of gun control, I posted my original comment as a half-serious devil's advocate

I just think that saying we shouldn't have any types of gun control on a personal level is a serious mistake

No, just I think opinion pieces from the New Yorker and the Washington Post don't set legal precedent. Especially not when journalists can collude in organizations like JournoList to push this idea.

Oh, and that guy (((Laurence Tribe))) is a kike too.

This is a hack's analysis: it is worth noting the lack of controversy involved given that, at the times of these rulings, the notion that anyone may actually contemplate an attempt at truly depriving people of the right to bear arms was far off. Remember, also, that the 1934 NFA resulted in a tax rather than a ban given objections that such a measure may well violate the second amendment. Still, the misreading of the constitution by the courts had largely been a non-issue: guaranteed right or not, the public was well armed.

And as mistrust in the government at both a state and federal level has grown, people have demanded a proper interpretation of the amendment. Until recent times, such a rendering had no practical effect, as there was no political will to disarm the public.

A well balanced breakfast, necessary to the start of the day. The people's right to food shall not be infringed

That was written in a time WHERE CANONS WERE IN PRIVATE HANDS and are considered DESTRUCTIVE WEAPONS TODAY AND REQUIRE EXTENSIVE PAPERWORK, TAX STAMPS, AN OK FROM YOUR LOCAL POLICE, AND AN OK FROM THE ATF. UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PEOPLE LITERALLY HAD BATTLESHIPS TO THEMSELVES AND DEDICATED IT ALL TO THE WAR EFFORT
THE FOUNDING FATHERS KNEW WHERE TECHNOLOGY WAS GOING
You can't fucking say when we had computers the size of rooms that they weren't going to become smaller. Same rule of thought applies to firearms. Banning salt weapons is a meme. Daily reminder a muslim perpetrated the biggest mass shooting in US history but was swept under the rug, the fags were forgotten, and it was another meme to somehow link to white men owning guns.

2A
WALL
NO MUDSLIMES

Thank GOD/KEK/PEPE that Trump won