Nothing being done. Another day for prayers

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

^^you proved my point sir. thank you! if you're a member of a well-regulated militia, a.k.a., the National Guard, then you are authorized to have weapons of war.

notice it doesn't say the same about every clown and his brother..

A militia does not exist until it needs to exist. Besides, we are not talking about the Dick Act. But when it does come into existence, there is not a bunch of days allocated to weapons and ammo acquirement. What if The Amazon is closed at the time? Regardless, it is not canceled by a Dick Act.

But as to grammar: I specified the use of a comma. The Second amendment stands until 2/3rds of all states, not counting Canada or Greenland yet, repeal it.

[pxmcc]

where does it say that?

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

A militia does not exist until it needs to exist. Besides, we are not talking about the Dick Act.i have no idea what you're talking about. But when it does come into existence, there is not a bunch of days allocated to weapons and ammo acquirement. correct again, if you are part of a well-regulated militia. you are always ready for a call-up.What if The Amazon is closed at the time? Regardless, it is not canceled by a Dick Act.

But as to grammar: I specified the use of a comma. The Second amendment stands until 2/3rds of all states, not counting Canada or Greenland yet, repeal it.

yes, that comma and the entirety of that prefacing clause are absolutely essential to having any clue about the meaning of the text behind it, regardless of what Trump's idiotic and illegally-stacked Supreme Court say about it. Thomas wants us to refer back to restrictions on the books as of 1789. what kind of fool's errand is that? among other things, assault weapons weren't a thing in 1789..

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

[B]where does it say that?...

Article V is where I would start to do a looky-loo.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

...regardless of what Trump's idiotic and illegally-stacked Supreme Court say about it...

Was that a statement or a question? Punctuation matters. But do please drone on about how the Supremes where illegally stacked and how The Trump did such.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

...Thomas wants us to refer back to restrictions on the books as of 1789. what kind of fool's errand is that?

Do drone on about originalism and how you know so much more about creating a Constitutional Republic than the founding Fathers did 1B1.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

...among other things, assault weapons weren't a thing in 1789..

They included the weapons of the day. Time marches on... Get with the times.

BTW: WTF is an assault rifle?!? Is it one of those black-ish thing-a-ma-jiggys? Or is that Waccist?

[pxmcc]

^^where does it say in the Constitution or federal statutes that a militia does not exist until it needs to exist?

the only reason why we have the silly notion that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a personal right to weapons of war is because of this 6-3 scam of a S.C. these justices know how to read statutes but they ignored everything they learned in law school to get to their preferred political outcome. that's why it's relevant to this thread.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

^^where does it say in the Constitution or federal statutes that a militia does not exist until it needs to exist?...

Could be from the late 1980s or early 1990s, when John Akers said: (roughly) Americans have allegiance to God, Country, Family and employer, in that order.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

...the only reason why we have the silly notion that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a personal right to weapons of war is because of this 6-3 scam of a S.C...

Nope. In actuality, it's because the Founders needed to add that in to the Bill of Rights to even get the US Constitution ratified.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

...these justices know how to read statutes but they ignored everything they learned in law school to get to their preferred political outcome. that's why it's relevant to this thread.

Sorry if your lackluster outcome from law school didn't pan out nearly so well 1B1. Might be high time to straighten out your priorities.

FWIW: I'm not saying this discussion is not relevant to the thread.

[pxmcc]

^^google "Presumption against surplusage" and then address how it applies to the clause before the 2nd comma: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"..

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

So's yer say'n all the rest of those other words are entirely superfluous?!? Yea, sure. You betcha...

Originally Posted by pxmcc

^^google "Presumption against surplusage" and then address how it applies to the clause before the 2nd comma: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"..

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

among other things, assault weapons weren't a thing in 1789..[/B]

Does the 1st amendment apply to the internet?

[pxmcc]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Does the 1st amendment apply to the internet?

yes. and?..

[pxmcc]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

So's yer say'n all the rest of those other words are entirely superfluous?!? Yea, sure. You betcha...

nope. the clause before the 2nd comma tells us the scope of the clause after.

simple translation: if you are in a well regulated militia, aka the National Guard, you have a right to keep and bear arms.

the Sup. Ct. conveniently ignored the clause before the 2nd comma to get to their desired outcome.

the presumption against surplusage says that when a court is analyzing a statute, it should assume that every word matters. there's a reason why the Founders mentioned a well regulated militia: that's the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to make sure that our militia could keep their service weapons with no worries.

if they meant that every clown and his brother should have access to weapons of war, they would have said so, and we would not have to guess..

[TechPapi]

So many constitutional scholars on here.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by TechPapi

So many constitutional scholars on here.

...perhaps.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what sensible gun laws would prevent this?

You mean you don't have concepts of a plan to prevent this in maggie land?

Y'all have the ideal time to eliminate the #1 cause of deaths of kids in this country and you refuse to do anything about it.

This is what you do when the ball is in your court. You mess it up.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

You mean you don't have concepts of a plan to prevent this in maggie land?...

WYID. It's called Common Sense Idiot Control. Ya could combine it with statistical analysis too. How many of these idiots are on extreme medications?

Regardless; you could choose to not purchase or retain firearms. You don't even need permission from anyone.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

WYID. It's called Common Sense Idiot Control. Ya could combine it with statistical analysis too. How many of these idiots are on extreme medications?

Regardless; you could choose to not purchase or retain firearms. You don't even need permission from anyone.

Common Sense, the new IQ in MAGA world.