[W:423]Ritterhouse just got a bump by a good judge

[bave]

A right that has no basis in 21st or even 20th century reality. The entire premise of that right has been expanded by the SC just because and even the original premise for that that right has been utterly obliterated by 20th and 21st century reality.

Great, and you were given the tools to change it. Call a constitutional assembly, there are a few things I would like to talk about as well.

 

[jnug]

Great, and you were given the tools to change it. Call a constitutional assembly, there are a few things I would like to talk about as well.

Before I forget it, the reason this country is awash in guns, with more guns than people is because it is so easy to buy them "legally". Virtually all of the guns used and owned illegally were initially purchased "legally" under the loose as a goose standards that exist in this country.

2A only discusses the right to own a gun. There is nothing, zero....zippo.....nada in the Constitution about conditions for "buying" a gun. That should be fair game.

 

[bave]

2A only discusses the right to own a gun. There is nothing, zero....zippo.....nada in the Constitution about conditions for "buying" a gun. That should be fair game.

*SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*

I am not sure how much more clear the framers could make it. They went pretty far out of their way.

Moreover, if you want to go down that road, we can talk about all sorts of procedures for registering to vote.

 

[jnug]

*SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*

I am not sure how much more clear the framers could make it. They went pretty far out of their way.

Moreover, if you want to go down that road, we can talk about all sorts of procedures for registering to vote.

"The usual Right wing cherry picking:
"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."

Nothing in there about buying a gun.
- the right to keep shall not be infringed
- the right to bear shall not be infringed

Nothing in there about the right to buy.

 

[US&THEM]

Uh, two?

For a unarmed guy who was shot 4 times, oh and shot in the back too.

 

[US&THEM]

*SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*

I am not sure how much more clear the framers could make it. They went pretty far out of their way.

Moreover, if you want to go down that road, we can talk about all sorts of procedures for registering to vote.

Well regulated militia right? Oh that is not good for your argument.

 

[bave]

For a unarmed guy who was shot 4 times, oh and shot in the back too.

Wow. Can't manage english well? You mentioned how many adjectives he used to describe the dead creep, the answer was... two.

Well regulated militia right? Oh that is not good for your argument.

To which the SCOTUS has interpreted multiple times to clarify.

 

[bave]

"The usual Right wing cherry picking:
"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."

Nothing in there about buying a gun.
- the right to keep shall not be infringed
- the right to bear shall not be infringed

Nothing in there about the right to buy.

Again, if we want to apply that theory, we can discuss it at a constitutional assembly where we can talk applying the same standard to various other rights.

 

[jnug]

Again, if we want to apply that theory, we can discuss it at a constitutional assembly where we can talk applying the same standard to various other rights.

Don't need to go to a Constitutional Convention regarding conditions and standards for BUYING a firearm. The constitution does not say anything about buying a firearm.

Only thing standing in the way......the gun lobby and the politicians they support.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Well regulated militia right? Oh that is not good for your argument.

Actually, the Supreme Court ruled firearm ownership is an individual right. Not good for your argument.

 

[jnug]

Actually, the Supreme Court ruled firearm ownership is an individual right. Not good for your argument.

Yes, the so-called non-progressive, originalist, conservative court of Roberts/Scalia. They were so embarrassed by the reaction to THAT ruling that right wing legal scholars immediately began to develop new terms for the Roberts/Scalia SC.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Yes, the so-called non-progressive, originalist, conservative court of Roberts/Scalia. They were so embarrassed by the reaction to THAT ruling that right wing legal scholars immediately began to develop new terms for the Roberts/Scalia SC.

Yeah, the Supreme Court is wrong argument.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Show me in the Constitution where you have a right to drive, driving is truly a privilege, owning a gun is a right. Got it?

If we want to go down that road, I am happy to test various other rights, starting with the right to vote.

I wish you 2nd amendment folks would read the bill of rights from at least 10 backwards, instead of 1 and 2 and stopping there.

The constitution does not grant you the right to bear arms. Or any right for that matter.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Don't need to go to a Constitutional Convention regarding conditions and standards for BUYING a firearm. The constitution does not say anything about buying a firearm.

Only thing standing in the way......the gun lobby and the politicians they support.

While the Constitution does not meantion buying firearms, I am more than confident the courts would eventually find banning the buying of all firearms unconstitutional. Obviously restricting the sale of certain firearms not withstanding.
Attempting to bypass the Constitution on word salad won't work.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

I wish you 2nd amendment folks would read the bill of rights from at least 10 backwards, instead of 1 and 2 and stopping there.

The constitution does not grant you the right to bear arms. Or any right for that matter.

It's already a done deal. As per Supreme Court decisions.

 

[Buckeyes85]

It's already a done deal. As per Supreme Court decisions.

Wrong again.
If you can find a single supreme court decision detailing the right to bear arms granted to you by the constitution, I will hang up my license to practice law.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Wrong again.
If you can find a single supreme court decision detailing the right to bear arms granted to you by the constitution, I will hang up my license to practice law.

Supreme Court justices interpit the Constitution and they based their decision on the Constitution...done deal.

 

[maxparrish]

Wrong again.
If you can find a single supreme court decision detailing the right to bear arms granted to you by the constitution, I will hang up my license to practice law.

Wait, its coming soon.

 

[US&THEM]

Wow. Can't manage english well? You mentioned how many adjectives he used to describe the dead creep, the answer was... two.



To which the SCOTUS has interpreted multiple times to clarify.

Heller was a bs decision and yet there are still regulations. Crazy huh? 4 shots into an unarmed man because Kyle was scared

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Heller was a bs decision and yet there are still regulations. Crazy huh? 4 shots into an unarmed man because Kyle was scared

Preventing a felon from obtaining a firearm in which he already threatened him with death.

 

[US&THEM]

Preventing a felon from obtaining a firearm in which he already threatened him with death.

Rittenhouse knew Rosenbaum was a felon? Um, no. Rittenhouse was not legally allowed to possess the rifle let alone walk around and pretend he was anything but a vigilante.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Rittenhouse knew Rosenbaum was a felon? Um, no. Rittenhouse was not legally allowed to possess the rifle let alone walk around and pretend he was anything but a vigilante.

Rosenbaulm already threatened him with death, but somehow ok to let him have a loaded rifle. Who was bipolar with no medication who was just released from a mental institution. It won't fare well for the prosecution on Rosenbaulms mental state after chasing him down and trying to take his rifle.

 

[GummyVitamins]

The Judge denied the motion but said he would keep an open mind. If you read the law Rittenhouse is in violation, hence why the defense motion was denied.

Point to the part of the law that makes him in violation. It's not there so good luck.

 

[US&THEM]

Point to the part of the law that makes him in violation. It's not there so good luck.

Um watch the motion when it was denied. Good luck? What i stated is exactly what happened, Rittenhouse had to be 18 years of age and that is why the motion was denied and also Black lost his motion. Those are facts. Pay attention.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Um watch the motion when it was denied. Good luck? What i stated is exactly what happened, Rittenhouse had to be 18 years of age and that is why the motion was denied and also Black lost his motion. Those are facts. Pay attention.

Show me where he has to be 18. It's not a difficult question.