Aren't gun laws that violate the 2nd amendment illegal?

Aren't gun laws that violate the 2nd amendment illegal?

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Democrats
>Caring about the second amendment
They only care that its in their way.

Yes.

All laws that violate the constitution are null and void.

your gun laws aren't good at all, government should take them away from you because American people are retarded hillbillies

>muh common sense
Apparently this overrules every law

Yes but only force matters. Everyone, even chimps know this.

did you like king of hill?

Well govern millitia. You always forget that part.

singel Civillians are no millitia!

From my knolage the national guard has all the weapons without restriction.

yes op but what can you do if the legislative and judiciary are against it

>Every citizen is a part of the militia
>Well regulated means prepared

Also; the right of /THE PEOPLE/ to keep and bear arms. You always forget that part.

You always forget the part with the militia.

So as long you are not in a millitia you got no rigth to bear arms.

So disarm every one who is not in the national guard. Witch is the ppl millitia.

You obviously don't speak English very well.

>mi·li·tia
>məˈliSHə/Submit
>noun
>noun: militia; plural noun: militias
>a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
>a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
>>>>>>>all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

All able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 are militia by SOCUS definition so yes, I am a militiaman.

>germany attempts english

stop

>You always forget the part with the militia.

You are just a functionally illiterate dumbass.

*SCOTUS
wtf autocorrect

First of all that's bullshit. You don't have to be in the militia, so says the Supreme Court, you disgusting fucking barbarian. Secondly, here is our official definition of the militia:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

>(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States

Go fuck yourself in hell, kraut.

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

read it and weep, kraut

Unconstitutional isn't the same thing as illegal. And no even the founding fathers had gun restriction laws in place. Rights aren't unconditional.

Men this is a real german thing you need unity and you need a fucking registration for everything. Fuck it! A "militia" is not a organisation it's a movement you don't that.
It's a way to fight for your right with a bargain of once life if its needed you don't need to first check it like windows update "are you sure to instal this ..."

>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.

>A is necessary to maintain B, so we will have a ready supply of C in order to create A so we can maintain B. Do not fuck with this, capitalized and underlined.

That's the exact same question a judge in Puerto Rico asked like a year ago. Guess what happened to the island's gun control laws right after?

It's the "well regulated" part that fucks it all up. There's an argument that the phrase "well regulated" was understood to be an synonym for "good" or "efficient" at the time it was written.

Excessive commas, ambiguous language, 3/10 see me after class.

>2A
>ambiguous

hoo boy

Any law that goes against something in the constitution is an unconstitutional law, not an illegal law, OP.
And the unconstitutionality of that law is up for interpretation and debate, etc.

Yeah, yeah but in historical context it's mean a unity against a threat if the British "empire strike back".

Today more then a extern thread more for intern the legislative in the US have too much power if you take the army into account.

...

this

...

Shut the fuck up you stupid faggot. The right to keep and bear arms was not invented after the Revolution. It was a right that has existed on this continent for over 400 years. The first settlers brought it over here with them. It was a right that existed in British common law hundreds of years before the United States was born. We simply carried it over and enshrined it, along with other anglo rights, in our Constitution.

Why is your country so goddamn cowardly? Answer me that. Is the right to be a coward part of German law?

So if the commies infiltrate the supreme court...

that last comma is not in the ratified version. dont let gungrabbers fool ya

...

...

>All able bodied males
>males

Then why do women have guns?

...

because we lost 2x WWs and are under occupation ...
you can googel it the regulation of arms in germany was added after fist WW

...

You want to know how easy it is to be american militia?

>"I'm part of the militia, I will defend my country, my people, and the constitutional rule of law that serves them."

inb4 dumbshit euros not understanding what 'militia' means

Yes, but why say male there, why not everyone?

Show all the definitions to regulate.

...

The second very much is, deployment might be, but if you're willing to break civil weapons ordinances, something significant has occured.

Because when the constitution was written women didn't have rights. Since then, the 14th amendment applies the 2nd amendment along with all other rights equally to men and women.

The constitution can be re-written, and in the case of the 14th amendment, it was.

The constitution defines what laws are legal, in US an unconstitutional law is an illegal law

T. Article VI

I see...

Do you think the founders wanted rules and regulations set forth and controlled by the government?

Is that ARMA 3 fanart?

...

and this ppl have the right to bear arms. Who are part of well regulated militia.

Correct. We the people.

Looks like it

MX 6.5
Chest Rig

...

Yes.

And when traitors try to enact laws that violate your 2nd amendment, you are supposed to use your 2nd amendment.

...

...

...

...

...

laws will be changed :-) like they always are.
Once you had full automatic weapons, now you dont.

Yes, but the supreme court judges who are appointed by the president get to decide what the constitution means.

Even without the comma the syntax and wording is pretty damn clear. I don't know of any way to write that one sentence any more clearly or simply.

Yes we do.

All gun laws are legal until their constitutional validity is tested by the Supreme Court against the second amendment. This is law 101, though I would like to say there are no stupid questions op's question is more like a statement and is thus fucking stupid.

Isn't that the case with any regulation that contradicts the constitution?

Nor are rights a given as jim Jeffersons said they are called amendments and can be changed. The freedom of speech could literally be repealed

And the people get to decide whether or not to obey those laws.

Gun laws have been changing for the better, actually.

And suffer the consequences for doing something considered illegal.

It is

Wow in ever thought of it like that before, thank for your input.

If said laws are democratically agreed to be wrong (such as everyone deciding not to follow them)

Then the law must change.

If it does not, and people in large enough numbers feel they are no longer represented and being punished for noncompliance, then they posess firearms, and can decide to do something about it.

Inb4 "muh tanks an drones."

Pic related explains it. As of current date, the US federal government and the american people have a mutually assured destruction type scenario forcing both to play nice.

Thats what america is about, checks and balances.

>Nor are rights a given as jim Jeffersons said they are called amendments and can be changed. The freedom of speech could literally be repealed
You mean Jim Jefferies the Aussie comedian, and if so why?

And what consequences will the government face for doing something considered illegal if the citizens are disarmed? If the government doesn't trust me with guns, why should I trust them with theirs?

Turning previously law abiding citizens into criminals doesn't prevent crime.

Topkek

An Australian comedian knows more about our rights than the founders of our country? The Constitution forces the government to acknowledge the rights we are born with. Our rights would still exist without it.

Sounds sexist as fuck to me. Time to update that shit and make the cunts carry their landwhales weight as well.

They didn't shoot us when we came back in 1812. We won that war.

It's not as easy to change as Canada's national anthem.

>i have never read the 14th amendment

Thats not how I recall reading it.
I seem to remember something about you guys asking for your ships and prisoners back and packing it up and leaving.
Except you took some of our slaves without permission and had to apologize and pay for them.

Nobodt gained or lost territory, and the policies of the crown that provoked the war were repealed before it even began but it took so long for news to travel that by the time everyone heard the fighting had already started. Everyone basically brushed themselves off and shook hands in embarassment before going home.

Its only slightly less retarded than the aussies bird problem.

Honestly it had a bigger impression on the canooks than it did anyone else.