You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] Peplfxr ago 

And the libs say “why do you need an AR-15 to hunt”

0
1

[–] Fried-Laptop 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

cuz sometimes the prey has 2 legs.

0
1

[–] MuckeyDuck [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I just realized something else from Heller. You know who anti-gunners argue that the second amendment does not grant individual rights to arms, we they are right. 2nd does not grant anything, it recognizes that the right already exist, it only says that right shall not be infringed. I have to be reminded of this at times.

Scalia:

The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16

0
1

[–] MuckeyDuck [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

When they say that the second amendment only applies to muskets, ask them if the 1st amendment only applies forms of communication available at the time of ratification.

Here is Scalia's wording from Heller:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.